Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, if the purpose of setting the vote at 5 minutes was to save time, the House's time, what purpose is served by allowing the roll to stay open for more than 20 minutes?

Mr. Speaker, but if the original purpose was to save time, why are we now extending time?

Can the Chair give us an estimate of when he expects to close the roll and announce the vote?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2057 and H.R. 3104. S. 2057 provides retroactive travel reimbursements for troops who returned home before December 19, 2003 from Iraq and Afghanistan for rest and recuperation leave. H.R. 3104 provides separate combat medals for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think you would be hard pressed to find a Member of Congress who opposes these low cost bills to benefit our troops. The only question is: What took us so long?

During debate on the $87 billion Iraq supplemental last October, I introduced an amendment that would have provided for free travel all the way home from Iraq and Afghanistan for troops on R&R leave, and would have required separate campaign medals be issued for service in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other important personnel benefits. The Republican leadership in the House would not even let this amendment on the floor for a vote. So here we are six months later, and we are only just now revisiting the issues.

Why so long? Quite simply, the Bush Administration opposed separate war medals for Iraq and Afghanistan, preferring instead to issue one service medal for the Global War on Terror. I understand the Administration's desire to put these operations in a larger context, but that does not translate to our troops on the ground. Circumstances leading up to and in Iraq and Afghanistan were very different, as are the challenges our troops face on the ground today. Furthermore, the Pentagon policy not only authorized a single medal for OEF and OIF, it does not prescribe service stars to reflect service in both conflicts or multiples tours of duty in the same conflict. This is blatantly wrong. Campaign and service medals proudly reflect military service in a particular conflict, enhance esprit-de-corps, and are a strong part of military history. It means a great deal to an infantryman to look at his fellow soldiers and say ``Iraq--yes sir, I was there.''

The British established the Iraq Campaign Medal to recognize service in, and in support of, operations in Iraq. Australia established separate ``Afghanistan'' and ``Iraq'' clasp for their Active Service Medal to reward OEF and OIF service. So why would we deny our servicemen, who are sacrificing so much for our country, separate medals that can boost morale for such a small price?

And if the Global War on Terror continues for many years on many fronts as the President has suggested it might, are we to expect that the Administration would prefer that we issue no new campaign medals in perpetuity? H.R. 3104 makes sure this will not be the case.

S. 2057 and H.R. 3104 are low cost, long needed morale boosts for our troops in the field, and though it has taken us too long to get to them, I wholeheartedly urge their passage today.

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 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to allocate portions of his time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just said that we have cut taxes and revenues have gone up. In fact, taxes were cut in 2001. Revenues, individual income taxes were $994 billion that year. The next year they went down to $858 billion. The next year down to $793 billion. This year the estimate is $765 billion, well below the $994 billion level when taxes were cut on individuals. The facts simply do not bear out the statement he made.

Let me also straighten out some other facts. First with respect to Medicare. The chairman, in putting together his mark, decided that he would adopt the CBO baseline for Medicare spending as opposed to the OMB baseline, which was $535 billion. CBO is $400 billion. So ignoring the President's actuaries, he put in the lower number. We, in order to have an apples-to-apples comparison with that resolution, have adopted the CBO baseline. Also, there is no difference between us in Medicare benefit spending. However, because the administration of the program can be improved, we provide $805 million more over 5 years for Medicare administration.

Also, on the mandatory side, we provide $8 billion for the Family Opportunity Act, an act that has enjoyed bipartisan support because it provides Medicaid coverage to children with special needs in families who otherwise would not qualify for Medicaid and cannot obtain private insurance. This is compassionate conservatism. We provided $8 billion to fund that program so we can finally get it established, and we added two more provisions in our budget resolution.

First, we said if the price of Medicare, in fact, exceeds $400 billion, then the prohibition against negotiating drug prices included in the Medicare prescription drug law should be suspended and we should negotiate lower prices. Secondly, we said take some of the excessive subsidies provided for the HMOs and redeploy that money. In the Committee on Ways and Means, we have got reconciliation instructions to that effect. Redeploy that money to make the Medicare prescription drug benefit better. We have a manifestly better set of provisions for Medicare and Medicaid in our budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to the gentleman.

The gentleman may not be aware of it, but this budget resolution which I am now offering as an alternative provides $6 billion more for homeland security than the Republican resolution, the committee resolution; it provides $5 billion more for law enforcement programs under the Justice Department; it provides the very same amount for national defense. So his criticisms are highly off the mark.

Let me also take a minute to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) with respect to tax cuts.

This resolution in section 201 says very clearly, it is the policy of this budget resolution to balance deficit reduction to middle-income tax relief. In that respect, we call for the Committee on Ways and Means to reconcile and extend the child tax credit, which will expire otherwise; the marriage penalty relief; the 10 percent bracket; to provide relief from the alternative minimum tax; to eliminate estate taxes on all but the very largest estates; to extend the research and experimentation tax credit; to accelerate the refundability of the child tax credit from 15 percent; and to include combat pay in determining refundability; and on down the list with five more illustrations of where we are calling for middle-income tax relief.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to my good friend, the chairman of the committee on which I also serve with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

I think he would readily agree, having served in the Army, that morale is an important operational necessity. What we are trying to provide for in our resolution is, we have $422.7 billion next year for national defense, plus a huge supplemental. We are simply saying, can we not give some primacy to personnel benefits and move around just a bit of that money to address a long-standing bone of contention, namely, the fact that widows of deceased service members have drastic reductions in their pensions when they reach the age of 62.

The gentleman knows that amongst reservists there is a big issue about TRICARE. We should be doing something to extend TRICARE to reservists in certain situations. Certainly, I think the gentleman supports the selected pay increases for the senior NCOs and junior officers, critical to keeping that core component of the services intact.

That is what we are trying to provide for, Mr. Chairman. That is all. We are trying to say, out of $422 billion, that kind of money, surely we can give some primacy to these priorities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to the gentleman, the House Republican resolution calls upon the House Committee on Armed Services, by May 15, to come up with $2 billion a year in permanent savings out of operations that are now deemed to be wasteful or inefficient, and then to allocate those savings to some additional priorities.

We are saying the same thing. We simply picked up on that idea and said, fine, here are three good personnel priorities to which this $2 billion in savings could be committed every year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Selected pay increases and TRICARE for reservists are for fighters, warfighters, not for nonoperational purposes or retirement purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman was off the floor when I read page 87, title II, section 201, outlining the tax cuts that we are calling for and stating the purpose of the resolution, which is to preserve and serve middle-income tax relief.

I would defy the gentleman to take this and in the four corners of this report show me where the $1.2 trillion additional tax increases are coming from. How is that number derived?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself.

The only bracket we refer to is the bracket that would include those making over, earning, having incomes over $500,000 a year, which is our definition of a wealthy person. So we are saying do not take all the benefits away from those taxpayers that have been provided by the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but consider cutting them in half, for example, in order to raise the revenues, to offset the costs of extending middle- income tax provisions like the 10 percent bracket, the child tax credit and the marital penalty provisions.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the manager's amendment be modified with the modification I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

There is not at all.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to begin the closing arguments, if I may reserve the time not yet used and add it to the 5 minutes for closure.

Mr. Chairman, we have to bring to conclusion this resolution, and then we move to a final conclusory debate on the surviving resolution, if this resolution does not prevail. Is that the sequence?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, here are the facts. In the year 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, our budget was in surplus by $236 billion. Members can see it right there. Our deficit reduction efforts went from a deficit of $290 billion in 1992 to a surplus of $236 billion in the year 2000.

Today, this year, we are told by the Office of Management and Budget that the budget will be in deficit by $521 billion. That is a swing of $757 billion in the wrong direction.

This budget before us sails into these tidewaters calling for additional tax cuts even though the budget is $521 billion in deficit, mired in deficit as far out as the forecasts go, and even though these additional tax cuts can only have one effect, they will add dollar for dollar to the deficits that are already enormous, $521 billion this year. If Members want to see what happens if we go on this course, if we take the course plotted by the President's budget, which is essentially what this budget is all about, Members can see on the first page of the CBO analysis of the President's budget, it will add $5.132 trillion to our national debt of $7 trillion over the next 10 years. It will raise the national debt to $12 trillion.

We have heard it said on the House floor repeatedly that taxes are not part of the problem. Taxes are not all of the problem. We have had a terrible toll taken on our economy and budget by terrorism, by war, and a recession that was not fully foreseen. But look at the tax cuts on the bottom of this graph. But for the tax cuts in 2008-2009, we would be close to balance again. That is the effect that the tax cuts have on the effort before us.

Part of the problem is that not just the tax cuts have taken a big bite out of the revenue stream of the government, but the surplus of $5.6 trillion, forecast 3 or 4 years ago, has now proved to be wrong. That left about half of the pie to be divided up, and fully 60 percent of that has been allocated to tax cuts, at least over the last 2 years. It has made it extremely difficult to bring this budget to balance, and additional tax cuts that the President proposes in his budget will make the problem even more intractable, more difficult to resolve.

Here is the tax cut agenda. It adds up to $3.7 trillion over the next 10-year period of time. Add up everything that has been done to date, everything that is pending and what we believe to be politically unavoidable, such as a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the revenues to the government will be reduced by $3.7 trillion over the next 5 years.

Now, the budget before us claims it will halve the deficit in just 5 years' time. It leaves the implication to many people that this reduction in the deficit will be linear. In truth, if Members read deeply into the budget, go into something called the Analytical Perspectives prepared by President Bush's own Office of Management and Budget, here is what happens to the budget deficit after 2009: It gets worse and worse and worse over time.

It does not self-correct. It will not go away with growth. We simply cannot glide to the objective that we all seek and get there without a bold budget plan, and the budget before us, the Republican budget before us, does not do the job.

What we offer as an alternative has great merit to it.

Now, what the Republicans have said repeatedly here on the floor is that spending is the source of the problem, and surely that is part of the problem. That is a significant share of the problem. But if Members look realistically at where the spending has occurred in the budget, they will find that 90 to 95 percent of the increased spending in the budget over the last 5 years has occurred in homeland security, defense, and the response to 9/11.

The administration says we have to have progrowth policies and we have to rein in spending, but it is unlikely that defense and homeland security are going to be reined in much, and if anything, they are likely to grow in the near future. So the spikes in the budget, the ones that Members would go to if they really wanted to get the deficit down and do it by spending, would be defense.

This chart is difficult to understand, but it shows over 10 years, from 2002 to 2011, the cost of defense over and above inflation, over and above inflation, has gone up by at least $1.3 trillion, and this assumes, as this hump shows, that we do not have any cost for Afghanistan and Iraq after 2004.

If those are added in, we have a $1.5 trillion increase in defense. So then we begin to see the problem. We have a $3.8 trillion tax cut agenda, reducing revenues by that amount, and we have a defense bill, a defense program, that is costing $1.3 trillion to $1.5 trillion over and above inflation and over and above what was budgeted just 3 or 4 years ago. When we put those two together, we have in a thumbnail the problem that confronts us right now.

Here are the numbers that correspond to what I was saying, that show that defense was going up by $1.3 trillion. That assumes that the cost of Iraq ends this year; hopefully, it will, but that is doubtful. If it does not this could easily be $1.5 trillion over and above where we were a couple of years ago.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, we have come up with a budget which takes these difficult facts and, number one, tries to set a target date for bringing the budget to balance. We do that in 2012.

Secondly, we have tried to bring the deficit in at lower and lower rates each year, and lower than our opposition, the Republican budget on the floor. We have succeeded in doing that. We adopt the full PAYGO bill. As a consequence of what we propose in our budget resolution, we bring the budget to balance in 2012.

At the same time, within this fiscal framework, we provide for middle-income tax relief, we provide more for education, more for veterans' health care, more for science under the NSF function of the budget, for example, more for the National Institutes of Health, more for health care.

Usually we are bringing spending back up to baseline. It is not a great deal more, but it is more in almost every respect, proving we can deal with the deficit without pulling up the drawbridge. We can be compassionate conservatives, conservative in the sense that we bring the budget to balance, compassionate in the sense that we deal with the needs of the American people and our country and do not turn our backs on them.

This is a good resolution we are offering as a substitute. It is fiscally and

morally responsible, and I urge that every Member vote for it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would allow me to do something he did earlier, and that is acknowledge the indefatigable work that our staff did. Tom Kahn, my chief of staff, Joe Minarik, and the staff members in back of the aisle, Sarah Abernathy, Arthur Burris, Linda Bywaters, Dan Ezrow, Jennifer Friedman, Jason Lumia, Sheila McDowell, Diana Meredith, Kimberly Overbeek, Scott Russell, Andy Smullian, Lisa Venus, Andrea Weathers, Jason Venner and Allison Colflesh, they have worked extremely hard over the last several weeks to bring this to fruition, and I am grateful for all of their support. By the same token, I know the chairman feels the same way about his staff.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate for which I am grateful because the gravity of this problem calls for it.

I wish all our effort could have been devoted to the search for common ground for a better solution; but I am afraid, as we bring it to a close, we find ourselves diverging more than converging. That is unfortunate, because the longer we put off the resolution of this problem, the more difficult it is going to become.

Here is the situation in a nutshell: the government will run a deficit this year of $521 billion. The President and our Republican colleagues claim that their budget will cut that deficit in half over the next 5 years; but, pardon me, I doubt that.

For one thing, on the spending side, they leave out any supplemental funding beyond 2005 for Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish they were right about that, but I doubt it. On the revenue side, they leave out any fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax, even though the Treasury Department tells us it will soon affect 30 million tax filers. So it is unrealistic to project revenues without it.

Worse still, after 2009, the Republican budget quits; and that is when it really gets tough. That is when I am afraid the budget gets worse. They leave us expecting that the budget is linear and that over time the deficit will be reduced, the half that is supposedly left in, but I do not think it will work out.

Let me just show you a few charts. At the expense of maybe showing you some things you have already seen, the first chart is a roller coaster. What happened when Bill Clinton came to office, President Clinton came to office with a $290 billion deficit. He put it in surplus by the year 2000 by $236 billion. It took really three budget agreements to bring it to resolution like that. Then in the last 4 years, you see this precipitous decline.

Now, I know that recession, terrorists, and war have all taken their toll on the economy and the budget; but there were conscious, deliberate choices made that caused this budget to skyrocket down.

There in another graphic portrayal is what happened. This is the Clinton administration building up surpluses, moving from deficit to surplus. Every year the bottom line of the budget is better. And here is the Bush administration, every year it gets worse and worse.

This chart shows on the far left side where we are today, looking at a deficit this year of $521 billion, a swing in the budget over the last 4 years of $760 billion, a phenomenal reversal of fiscal discipline.

Despite the claims the President makes that he will cut this in half, when we make what we regard as basic, realistic, politically inevitable adjustments to his budget, this is where you end up in 2014, not with a diminished deficit, but about where we started out, $502 billion as opposed to $521 billion. It treads water, at best.

The problem does not go away. It does not go away with growth; it does not go away with anything but an effort to bring it to healing.

Here is part of the problem. We have heard the Republicans say here that tax cuts have not done all of that. That is true. Part of the problem is that these surpluses were overestimated by 50 percent to start with. Now, when we look at the size of their tax cuts, the wedge taken out of the tax cuts, by the tax cuts out of the remaining surplus, that is about 50 to 55 percent. It is about half the problem that we are looking at today.

Here is another aspect of the problem right here. The tax cut agenda is $3.77 trillion over the next 10 years. This is pending, enacted tax cuts already. On top of that, we are increasing defense over the same period of time by about $1.3 trillion over inflation.

That is why, as this chart right here shows, the big hump is the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we extend it, taper it off, and it concludes up here, we will add about $1.5 trillion over and above inflation to defense between 2002 and 2011, more than we anticipated spending in current services.

I am not saying it is not needed. What I am saying is, when the Republicans say we have to bring spending to heel, we have to bring spending under control, this is where it is occurring, as this next graph shows. As these three bar graphs show, over the last 4 fiscal years, 90 to 95 percent of the increase in spending over and above current services has occurred in these accounts, and they are not likely to be reined in.

Mr. Chairman, we are not coming to grips with the budget today in this resolution. Unfortunately, the resolution avoids bold strokes and it will take bold strokes, believe me, to untie this Gordian knot.

If we want to strike a bold stroke, if we want to do something about the deficit, if we want to do something about saving and making solvent Social Security, vote against this budget resolution. That is the single best thing we can do for deficit reduction and for putting our country back on fiscal track. Vote against it, send us back to the drawing board. Let us come to the House with something worthy of passage, something that will put us back on a path to a balanced budget. This resolution will not do it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 14 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let me address the last remark made by my good friend, the Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), by saying that the budget resolution we will bring to the floor as a substitute for the House Republican resolution will generate a lower deficit, that is right, a lower deficit every year from 2005 through 2014. As a result, the resolution that we offer will accumulate $1.24 trillion less debt over a 10-year period of time, 2005 through 2014, than the President's budget.

Finally, and most importantly, our budget will go to balance, our budget will be in balance, in 8 years, in the year 2012. Lower deficits, less debt, a balanced budget by the year 2012. That is what we set out to do.

Because, you see, Mr. Chairman, we can remember where we were just 3 short years ago. We can remember that 3 short years ago we were in surplus in fiscal year 2001 by $127 billion. We were in surplus the year before, the last full fiscal year of the Clinton administration, by $236 billion, an unprecedented fiscal performance.

President Clinton inherited a deficit of over $290 billion, and every year over 8 years the bottom line of the budget got better, better and better, due to two different budget plans we adopted and imposed during the 1990s; and by the year 2000, we had an unprecedented surplus of $236 billion. We want to go back to where we were when we were running the budget in the black.

Three years have seen the budget decline from a surplus of $236 billion in 2000 to a deficit this year in 2004 equal to $521 billion. That is not my number, that is not my creation. Bush's Office of Management and Budget says that the deficit this year will be $521 billion. That means that last year, this year and next year, we will accumulate $1.2 trillion in national debt.

Just 3 years ago, with Washington surpluses, we had an uncommon task before us. We were so accustomed to dealing with deficits, we had to ask ourselves afresh, what do we do now that we have surpluses?

We had several choices: We could do what we said we could do seven, eight, nine times on the House floor, set up what is called a ``lockbox,'' a corny name for a substantive idea, namely that we would quit borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and henceforth only use the trust fund to buy up outstanding Treasury debt.

If we did that, we could pay off most of the Treasury debt held by the public over a period of 8 years, add $3.5 trillion to net national saving, drive down the cost of capital, make Treasury more solvent because it would have less debt to third parties to pay forever, and take the first stride toward making Social Security solvent, which is the most critical problem we face fiscally and domestically, because the baby boomers are on the doorstep of retirement in 2008, and when they retire, they will have a dramatic impact on our economy and on our budget.

Or we could take some of the surplus and fund priorities like education and defense, infrastructure and health care, that we had slighted during the 1990s as we bore down on spending in an effort to balance the budget.

Thirdly, we could take the surpluses that were projected, not proven, it was not money in the bank, we could take these projected surpluses and pass trillions of dollars in tax cuts.

As we pondered that decision, Mr. Chairman, President Bush took office, and he came to office with this big advantage that no President in modern history has enjoyed, a budget in surplus, big-time surplus. And his Office of Management and Budget looked out over 10 years and they said, We foresee $5.6 trillion in surpluses between 2002 and 2010.

The President paid little heed to these other options. He forsook the whole idea of the lockbox and saving Social Security. Oh, he paid lip service to it, but his primary, driving, compelling motive was to have the biggest tax cuts possible, and in effect, the Bush administration, as they passed those tax cuts, told us we could have it all, with surpluses this size, we could have it all. We could have tax reduction and debt reduction too. We could have more tax cuts and bigger defense as well.

Let me make the record clear. We were for tax cuts on this side, but we wanted more moderate tax cuts. We wanted to be cautious about over- relying on this forecasted surplus, we wanted to be careful not to make the tax cuts so big that they left no room for other priorities, and in particular, we wanted to stay out of Social Security, because we had sworn never again to dig into the Social Security trust fund now that we were out of deficit.

Those concerns were dismissed in the passage of a huge tax cut, and here you see the consequences. The $5.6 trillion surplus today, in accordance with the President's 2005 budget, is now a deficit of $2.928 trillion. That is a swing in the wrong direction of $8.5 trillion over the last 3 years, a phenomenally incredible fiscal performance over the last 3 years.

We warned that the forecast upon which the President's tax cuts were predicated could be off, could be wide of the mark, and sure enough, it was. The economists now tell us it was 55 percent overstated, misestimated.

As a consequence, there never really was a surplus sufficient to fund or offset the tax cuts that the President was proposing. Therefore, as a result of the tax cuts, the additional spending that we have had during this period of time, mainly for defense, homeland security and response to terrorism, that additional spending has driven the budget deeper into deficit than would have otherwise been the case.

The next chart will show you where we are right now and where we think we are headed if you take the President's budget 2005, if today or tomorrow the House votes for the President's budget.

This is where the Clinton administration started out with a deficit of $290 billion, this is where they took the budget, to a surplus of $237 billion, and this is what has happened under the auspices of the Bush administration on their watch. We have descended from $236 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit.

Now, that deficit is bad enough. The administration would have you believe that they are going to cut that deficit in half over the next several years, over the next 5 years. We do not believe that forecast. When we make what we regard as realistic adjustments to their spending curve, this is what happens on this chart here over the next 10 years.

We get a bounce from the economy. The economy does help the deficit, no question about it. So we get a bounce in the early years. We go from a deficit of about $478 billion, and it bottoms out $200 billion to $300 billion for the rest of the time. As a consequence, we do not ever see this budget going into balance.

Now, we had to do this by what economists call extrapolation. Neither the Republicans in the House nor the Republicans in the Senate nor the Republicans in the White House have given us a 10-year extension of the budget so we can see the real implications over time of what they are proposing in the way of additional tax cuts and additional spending.

But we know, because the Congressional Budget Office takes what the President proposes, applies his policy to their baseline, we know where they are likely to end up. And what you see here is in time, over time, the deficit bottoms out close to $300 billion and goes nowhere.

To the contrary, look what happens on this blue line. All of a sudden, this blue line, which is the CBO baseline that does not factor in the President's policies, it assumes that the tax cuts, when they reach their expiration date, the sunset date that was written into them when they passed, this line assumes that beginning in the year 2008, the current services bottom line suddenly shoots upwards so that it goes from a deficit in 1 year of $153 billion to a surplus 2 years later of $98 billion.

Now, what happens, one might ask, to propel the budget out of deficit into surplus over that period of time. The tax cuts expire. And this chart says volumes about what the source of the deficit problem is. The expiration of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and in 2003, that alone is sufficient to move the budget out of a $153 billion deficit per CBO's projection to a surplus of $98 billion in 2 years.

So looking at this kind of study, we have tried to put together a balanced budget, balanced in the sense that the bottom line is black, that revenues are sufficient to cover expenditures; balanced in the sense that we are covering priorities that are essential and vital to the American people, including national defense.

Let me begin with that, just to tell my colleagues what we are presenting in our budget today. We have the same number for national defense as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has in his resolution; but in fact we have more, because we are adding $6 billion more than he provides for homeland defense, which many of us regard as the next and most dangerous battlefield for most Americans. We have middle-income tax cuts. Our resolution assumes that, for example, the marital tax penalty provisions will be extended and renewed. It assumes that the 10 percent bracket will be renewed and extended. It assumes that the welfare-to-work credits will be extended. In addition, we have extended the alternative minimum tax for a year. We have extended the research and experimentation tax for a year. We are not against all tax cuts. We want to see and we state explicitly in this budget resolution that our policy is to balance tax fairness and tax moderation for middle-income Americans with a balanced budget.

Now, having met the opposition in defense, what do we do in other areas that are priorities to the American people? In education, because we think it is a critical priority, we provide over 5 years $9.8 billion more than the House Republican resolution. We provide over 10 years for education $50 billion more than President Bush's budget calls for. We increase Pell grants. We provide more for the environment. By that I mean the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Land and Conservation Fund is fully funded. We provide veterans health care at the level that the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs said he would require, that the veterans health care system would require if we are going to meet our obligations and our promises.

We provide in the defense budget that the survivor benefit provisions be carried out. We provide needed budget authority so that family housing for military families can proceed apace. For science; for health; for the NSF, the National Science Foundation; and the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, we provide a budget that will at least protect them against inflation. We have gotten their funding level up; we do not want to see it whittled away due to inflation.

If my colleagues go down the list like this, they will see in good, solid categories where the need is clear and compelling, we have provided more than they. We have dealt with America's needs and will outline this more explicitly with different groups of Members as the day goes on. But we have done it within the framework where we bring the budget to balance by the year 2012, accumulate less debt, and move out of the mire that we are now in towards the days that we enjoyed just 3 years ago when this budget was in surplus.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would add to what the gentleman just said that we all voted by voice vote to increase veterans' health care by $1.2 billion in committee. It passed on a voice vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.

To complete what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) was saying, it is significant and Members should understand that we have made special provision in our budget resolution to see to it that the contracting officers of the full military services have the budget authority backup needed to continue the privatization plan for expanding and improving military housing. Without the action we take, without the additional budget authority we provide these contracting officers, military housing will come to a trickle, if not a screeching halt. We provide that in our budget resolution.

In addition, I would say to the gentleman in the well just now talking about NASA that we provide $4.875 billion over 5 years more than the House budget resolution for the projects that he was just praising.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 16 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) to respond.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman. In each of those items where the gentleman said, ``and they call that a cut,'' we do not call that a cut. We acknowledge that there is a substantial sum of money being put forth. But, in fact, this budget resolution reduces the President's request in nondefense homeland security items by $857 million. It is a matter of plain fact in the formulation of this budget resolution, and that is a cut. We provide $6 billion more than the budget resolution presented by the majority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes before yielding to others to talk about debt and Social Security because the two, believe it or not, are critically linked.

Every year when the President sends us his budget, the Congressional Budget Office does an analysis of the President's budget and applies the President's budget to its baseline for the economy and extends it over a 10-year period of time. I have a copy here in my hands of the CBO estimate of the President's budget for fiscal year 2005.

If there is nothing else my colleagues read in this rather laboriously written report, I recommend to my colleagues table 1, chapter 1, and I recommend to them the very last column because in the very last column, at the top of it, we have a CBO estimate of how much will be added to the national debt, the statutory debt, if the President's budget, which is basically the same as the Republican budget on the floor now, is implemented and carried out.

The number is $5.132 trillion. That is the estimate of the statutory debt increase that will result from the adoption of the President's budget, $5.132 trillion in additional debt.

What is the consequence of that? We can have tax cuts, but when we have tax cuts and do not have a surplus, the amount of the tax cut goes straight to the bottom line, adds to the deficit, and the deficit adds to the national debt, and sooner or later, the debt has to be paid. The principal has to be paid, and periodically, interest on the debt has to be paid. There is nothing more obligatory than the interest we owe and the principal we owe on the debt backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

So, basically, what my colleagues are electing with these tax cuts is not to pay it, but to shift the cost onto our children.

So the subject we are debating really is a moral subject: How much should we shift onto our children in the way of additional debt? They are going to have to carry Social Security, which is underfunded; Medicare, which is underfunded; and now with this vote, we are shifting off onto them $5.132 trillion in additional debt. If my colleagues do not believe it, come over here and look at this CBO report.

What is the early toll of that debt service? We had worked debt service down from $250 billion a year, interest on the national debt, to $153 billion this year, last year. Within 10 years, debt service will double. It will go up to $374 billion. That is called a debt tax. We get a tax cut today, but in 10 years, the cost of having the tax cuts today, adding to the national debt, will be $374 billion, doubling of the debt service.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for the purposes of controlling the time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).

(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

(Ms. CARSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) so that she can respond.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for one more unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for purposes of control.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I say to the gentleman a fiscally responsible budget is our budget because every year, if that is the measure, our budget accumulates, generates a smaller deficit. Over 10 years, our budget accumulates $1.2 trillion less debt than the Republicans' and ours goes to balance in 2012, a claim they cannot make.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), and ask unanimous consent that he have the right to allocate the time allotted to him.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, let me put a few things about this debate in perspective. There has been a lot of talk on the floor today about tax increases, tax cuts and spending increases. Let me try to put the tax cuts, in particular, in perspective.

In 2001, with what seemed to be a substantial surplus, there was a case to be made for tax reduction. I disagreed with the distribution that was proposed and particularly with the size, and I said right here in the well of the House, if my colleagues pass a tax cut of this size and if the surplus does not pan out and it could disappear in the blink of an economist's eye, I said, we are going to find the budget right back in the red again, borrowing and spending the Social Security trust fund. And, unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened.

So a person could have made a case in 2001, but today, that case no longer applies because there is no surplus today. It is gone. It vanished. We only have deficits as far out as the forecasters project their forecast.

CBO, in their analysis of the President's budget, projects the deficits over the next 10 years. If we adopt this resolution and effectively implement the President's budget request, and by their calculation, not mine, their reckoning, that will cause us to accumulate $5.132 trillion in additional debt over the next 10 years, $5.132 trillion of additional debt added to the existing debt of nearly $4 trillion, we will bequeath to our children, the next generation, a debt of nearly $10 trillion in addition to Social Security, which is underfunded, and Medicare, which is underfunded. That is some legacy to leave our children.

Debt service, as I pointed out earlier, under that same projection will increase from $153 billion this year to $374 billion 10 years from now in 2014.

So what happens? I get a tax cut, and I like a tax cut as much as anybody. On the other hand, my grandchildren, Lily and Jack, pick up the tab. They have to pay the debt tax. That is not my idea of the kind of legacy I want to leave my children and my grandchildren, but that is exactly what my colleagues are doing if they vote for this budget today which does not diminish the deficit over time and does not give us a way out of these unending deficits that lead to debt stacked on debt stacked on debt. That is what will happen.

Now, what my colleagues are doing, therefore, if they vote for this resolution and vote to implement the President's budget, they are effectively saying, let us add dollar for dollar every additional tax cut proposed here into the deficit because there is nothing to offset it. There is no surplus to absorb part of it. There are no spending cuts that will offset it. This will go straight to the bottom line and add to the deficit and the accumulation of debt that has already been reckoned, calculated by the CBO, as I said, it was $5.132 trillion over the next 10 years.

So my colleagues are making a deliberate policy choice that these additional tax cuts are making permanent, the 2001, 2002 and 2003 tax cuts, is more important than deficit reduction.

There is another aspect of this, also. In making this choice for additional tax cuts, my colleagues are effectively saying tax cuts trump Social Security, tax cuts are more important than putting money away to make Social Security, our most important safety net program, and Medicare solvent over the next 75 years. I have a chart right here which is very simple. Anybody can understand it. It is very graphic.

It shows the present value of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 extended over 75 years, the amount of tax revenues forgone or forgiven are not claimed or captured if these tax cuts become a permanent part of the code for 75 years. That is the red bar, $14 trillion.

On this side, we see what it would cost, in blue, to make Social Security solvent in present-value terms over the next 75 years. It is $3.75 trillion and the amount to make Medicare solvent $8.2 trillion. Those two sums add up to less

than the present value of the tax cuts that will be made permanent if my colleagues vote for this resolution and implement the President's budget as he sent it up here.

So vote for this resolution and my colleagues are saying these tax cuts, which we enacted back in 2001 and 2002, when we thought we had a huge surplus and, therefore, we could afford them, these tax cuts are much more important than saving Social Security and Medicare. My colleagues are making a choice, a deliberate policy choice. There is an opportunity cost here. There is no way around here.

There has also been talk on the floor about big spending, about the rate at which spending has been increasing in the Federal budget over the last several years, and we have noted the irony of it. Because I am a Democrat, we do not control this place. We do not control the spending that is passed here. We do not control the White House or the Senate or the House. Nevertheless, our colleagues are saying spending, in this institution they control, is just growing at too rapid a rate. Well, let me show my colleagues where the spending increases have actually come.

If we look at the budget, where the spending increases have actually occurred, and look at the current services which just maintain things at an existing rate, and then look at the things that spike up way above the current services level in terms of spending increases, we will find that for the last 4 fiscal years, 90 and 95 percent of all the spending and increases over and above current services have occurred in order to pay for national defense, in order to pay for homeland defense in a category that did not even exist in the budget a few years ago, and in order to pay for the post-9/11 bailout of New York City and the airlines. That is where 90 to 95 percent of the spending has come, if my colleagues look at the budget carefully.

Now, why is that important? Because the President says we have got to rein in spending, but he is not reining in this spending. He does not propose to rein in spending in these categories, and indeed, it is going to be very difficult to do.

The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) set out to decrease defense spending by just a bit, one-half of 1 percent off the 7 percent that the President was requesting as an increase. Thirty-four members of his party told him they would not vote for the resolution if he did it. Mr. Nickles took a nick out of defense in the Senate. It was reversed by a vote of 96 to 4. So the likelihood that Democrats and Republicans are going to vote for big decreases here, given the world situation we find ourselves in, at least in the near term, is not very great at all.

Instead, what we have is concentration on this sector here, this blue sector called domestic nonhomeland discretionary. In other words, this is domestic discretionary spending, the money that we appropriate every year in 13 different appropriations bills, excluding homeland security because it is growing at a pretty fast clip for good reason.

There is that wedge, 15 percent of the budget, and that is basically where all the pressure is being borne. The President's budget would cut discretionary spending in this category by $303 billion below current services over the next 10 years, but there is only so much blood we can squeeze out of such a small turnip, and so when we do not get the budget to balance in 10 years, we are actually going off into the stratosphere because of the renewal and extension of the big tax cuts in 2001 and 2002 and 2003. They will be renewed and extended in 2011, and therefore, the budget deficit gets bigger and bigger. This will not do. This is not enough.

So what is happening here is, ironically, everyone is decrying this enormous increase in spending, and yet they are not doing anything or proposing anything to do about the categories of discretionary spending where the increases are really occurring, and where they are applying pressure is on a wedge of the budget that is not that large, not that fast growing and not sufficient, not sufficient by any means to wipe out the deficit.

Alan Greenspan was before our committee, and he was a big advocate of using spending cuts predominantly in order to subdue the deficit. So I asked him, Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Chairman, tell me, if we wiped out all of the domestic discretionary spending, we would still have a deficit of $100-odd billion. Obviously we cannot wipe out the FBI, we cannot wipe out the Federal court system, we cannot wipe out the Federal penitentiary system. These are essential functions of the government. Where are you going?

Then he said, you have got to go to Social Security, you have got to cut Social Security, effectively acknowledging that that is right, that wedge is too small, particularly if you insist upon not doing anything on the revenue side.

What we have brought to the floor is a budget that will have a lower deficit than the Republican main bill. Our alternative will have a lower deficit every year for 10 straight years, lower than the President's bill, lower than the Republican's main bill. In fact, over a period of 10 years, we will accumulate in debt additional to the national debt today $1.240 trillion less than the Republicans, and we will move our budget to balance in the year 2012.

Less deficits, balanced budget in 2012 and less debt accumulation, that is what the choice is tonight and tomorrow, a budget that is responsible, that makes some bold decisions, in a measured way moves us towards a balanced budget, protects priorities that are important to the American people, that moves us back into the black, as opposed to a budget that effectively makes a choice to trump the salvation and solvency of Social Security with the primacy of tax reduction.

That is the choice before us today. It is that simple. It is that basic. That is what is at stake, and basically the moral issue at stake, which in my opinion overarches everything, is more important than the fiscal implications, more important than the accounting aspects is, are we going to take this enormous debt, these huge deficits that are accumulating, about which we are doing next to nothing if we adopt the Republican bill, and shift them off on our children and our grandchildren? Not on my watch, not on my preference.

I would vote for this resolution. I think every responsible Member should.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for his contribution.

The gentleman was talking about the budget. The reason the budget is topical is tomorrow the House takes up what we call the budget resolution. It is a tough task that lies before us tomorrow. The budget resolution is just an outline. This is it right here. I have the Democratic substitute to it. It is about 67 pages double-spaced. So why is it so tough? It is tough because the deficit this year is $521 billion. This year, 1 year, the deficit is $521 billion.

The budget is in deficit over the next 10 years by at least two to three times that amount, by at least $4 trillion on top of that amount. That is one reason the task is tough.

It is also tough because we did not have to be here. We did not have to be in this situation. Three years ago when President Bush took office, he gained a benefit that no President in recent history has enjoyed. He gained a budget which he inherited in surplus, big-time surplus, by more than $100 billion. The previous year, the year 2000, the surplus was $236 billion. We actually paid off debt of the United States in 1999, 2000 and 2001. That was the context in which Mr. Bush came to office.

His economists at his budget shop, the Office of Management and Budget, looked out over the next 10 years and told the President they foresaw surpluses, cumulative surpluses, of $5.6 trillion. Today, just 3 years later, those surpluses have disappeared. Vanished. They are gone. They are no more. In their place we have a deficit, a cumulative deficit, of $2 to $3 trillion over the next 10 years, depending on assumptions you make about tax and spending policy.

What happened to that surplus of $5.6 trillion? As it turned out, we warned the President. We had seen surpluses like this projected before. The projection is really an economist's construct of the future, and they missed it. They misestimated the size of the surplus by at least 50 percent. And when you diminish the surplus expected of $5.6 trillion by 50 to 55 percent, it becomes $2.6 to $2.8 trillion. All of that remaining surplus has now been wiped out by tax cuts and then some, and by spending increases, largely for defense.

The President says we have to rein in spending, but for the most part, spending has gone to defense, homeland security, the New York bailout, the airline bailout, the consequences of 9/11, categories that could hardly have been controlled. Domestic discretionary spending on education and health care and the environment has been growing at 2 to 3 percent a year. He says we have to rein it in, but he ignores the spending category that is the big spike in the budget.

In any event, the surplus has disappeared. The surplus of $5.6 trillion is no more. It has been replaced by a deficit. So you would expect the President in that light to send us a budget this year that would begin to move us into balance, take us back to the path we were on when he came to office, when he saw nothing but surpluses for the next 10 years.

The President does indeed present us a budget which claims to cut the deficit in half by 2009, within 5 years. But he omits from that calculation anything for waging war of low intensity against the insurgencies and so forth in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing for the deployments we have there. Even though his Office of Management and Budget says that there will probably be at least $500 billion more needed sometime later this year or early next year, you will not find that calculated anywhere in the President's budget.

When he says we are going to cut the deficit in half, not a nickel after 2004 is included for the cost of our deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though the cost is substantial and they are not coming to an end, unfortunately, anytime soon.

And so the President does not bring the budget to balance. Indeed, he does not run his budget out 10 years as was customary just a few years ago.

When he came to office, so that he could say that there is plenty of support for the type of tax cut I am proposing, $1.7 trillion in tax reduction over 10 years, he extended his projection of the budget out over 10 years to get the cumulative total of $5.6 trillion. Those who looked closely noticed that two-thirds to three-fourths of all that surplus occurred in the second half of that 10-year period of time. Now, the surplus has disappeared, the basis for those tax cuts has been removed, so what does the President recommend for next year? Another $1.3 trillion in tax reduction. He recommends making permanent all of the tax cuts made in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

We are not here tonight to advocate higher taxes or more taxes or more revenues. We are here to advocate rebalancing the budget as a critical domestic priority, particularly given the fact that in just a few years we are going to see a demographic phenomenon the likes of which this country has not seen before, the retirement of the baby boomers. Within 20 years, the number of people on Social Security will nearly double. The number of beneficiaries on Medicare will nearly double. We should be preparing now by saving, and we are not.

We are dissaving. We are spending more than we take in. As a consequence, our children are going to have to bear the cost of Medicare and Social Security for our retirement, for the baby boomers' retirement. And in addition to that, they are going to have to bear the consequences of the debt that we are now stacking up, which could easily be $7, $8, $9 trillion by the time the baby boomers begin to retire and start drawing their benefits. That is why this is a serious period that requires serious fiscal policy.

So what does the President recommend? He recommends another $1.3 trillion in tax cuts, and the budget resolution that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, will bring up tomorrow will embrace essentially the same tax agenda, which can only mean, given the fact that we have no surplus anymore, that every dollar of those tax cuts, if they are enacted and implemented, every dollar of revenue lost due to those tax cuts will go straight to the bottom line, will enlarge the deficit and will make it bigger and not smaller.

That is the situation we find ourselves in tonight and tomorrow as we take up the budget resolution, with a tough problem and difficult to handle.

Before going further, let me recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up where the gentleman left off with more explanatory charts. We have said that the projected surplus in the year 2001 when the President came to office was an unprecedented $5.6 trillion. There it is on this simple table. Under the President's fiscal policies and under the situation of the times, not all of his making, that surplus declined from $5.6 trillion to a deficit today in accordance with his 2005 budget, which will equal over this same period of time 2002, 2011, a cumulative $2.928 trillion deficit. From $5.6 trillion in surplus to $2.9 trillion in deficit. The arithmetic is simple. That is a reversal of $8.5 trillion over a 3-year period of time. We have never seen fiscal discipline come so unraveled, all of the effort in the 1990s to put the budget in balance for the first time in 30 years, to put it in surplus, to bequeath that surplus to President Bush only to have it absolutely wiped out over the next 3 years.

Here is a very simple graph that shows the path the deficit has taken since 1989 when the first President Bush was the President. As we can see, under the administration of the first President Bush, the deficit declined and grew worse, from $153 billion to $221 billion to the point where in the last year the first President Bush held office, we had a deficit of $290 billion. In 1991, 1992, a deficit of $290 billion. That was the situation that President Clinton found when he came to office in January of 1993.

If we look at the curve rising up, it shows us that every year of the Clinton administration, the bottom line of the budget got better and better and better. Every year the deficit was lower until 1998 when we had a surplus for the first time in 30 years and in the year 2000 we had a surplus, a phenomenal surplus, of $236 billion. The next year President Bush came to office. Three solid years preceded him in surplus. His own economists told him to expect a surplus of $5.6 trillion. They blew it. They overestimated it. We warned him to be wary, but nevertheless that was the situation in which he came to office. Here is what has happened since. The $521 billion here at the bottom of this chart is the projected deficit for this year from the administration. That is not our estimate. We are not trying to put some sort of spin on it. The facts are bad enough and speak for themselves. The Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Bush's shop, said the deficit this year will be $521 billion.

As we see the next chart, we pick up that $521 billion over here on the vertical axis, right there, $521 billion, the deficit in 2004; and then we make some politically realistic, and we think budgetarily realistic, adjustments to the path that CBO, our Congressional Budget Office, has plotted for the President's budget because they make certain assumptions that are, frankly, not realistic. For example, they require by law to assume that when a tax cut expires, it dies, it sunsets, it does not come back. We know from practical experience that popular tax cuts are almost always renewed, and therefore they do not give a plus-up to the budget. If we make assumptions like that, politically realistic assumptions, then the President's budget will go from $521 billion to 389 next year. It gets a bit of a bounce from this economy. It is helping. The economy is helping diminish the budget deficit, but it bottoms out at about that level and stays around 300 to $400 billion for the next 10 years to the point where in 2014, the deficit is still over $500 billion: 521 in 2004; 502 in 2014. That is our best estimate of where we are going under the President's budget per his projections adjusted for what we consider political reality.

By the way, the blue line up there, which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) was just rising to call my attention to remind the Members, that is the plot we were on, the path we were taking when President Bush came to office, and that is how far we have descended into debt. From all the way up here, $250 billion in surplus down to deficits of $521 billion.

It is obvious to anyone, everyone, that a budget deficit of this magnitude requires bold measures. Simple half measures simply will not cut it. We learned that in the 1980s and the 1990s. We need a long-term plan for deficit reduction. We need enforcement to back up our intentions, and we need to look at every segment of the budget, spending and revenues both.

If we look at this simple pie chart here, we will see that this wedge, domestic nonhomeland security, discretionary spending, that is, education, the FBI, the Justice Department, the National Parks Service, the government as we know it falls in this wedge right here. The entitlement programs take up two thirds of the budget. This other wedge, the red wedge, is for defense and international support, international aid, foreign aid, discretionary spending; and then this sliver down here is homeland defense. A small sliver today, but growing every year, $46 billion this year, an account that did not even exist in the budget 3 years ago.

Well, what does the President propose? Essentially what he proposes is to rein in spending, his words, but he goes only to this segment of the budget, 15 percent of the budget, domestic, nonhomeland security, domestic discretionary spending. He goes to it and begins to clamp down on it and take one-half to one percentage points out of it, cuts that do not seem that draconian in truth.

But, in effect, the President takes about $10 billion to $15 billion below constant dollar levels out of the domestic discretionary accounts, and by the fifth year of his budget forecast, that is all that is left. That is all that is left. The cut amounts to $40 billion to $50 billion. It begins to become serious, particularly in accounts like education and health care.

Now, we have taken seriously this budget forecast because it is, I think, a call to arms. If you add up all of the deficits shown on this politically realistic line, they come to about $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years. If we are realistic, honest, frank, and face the facts, that is the future we are looking at. I do not think that is a sustainable course. I do not think that is a future we want to have or a situation we want to bequeath to our children.

So we have come up with a budget that will be offered tomorrow as a substitute to the budget offered by our Republican colleagues. Their budget never gets in deficit, partly because they only run the budget out 5 years, not 10 years as was customary in the recent past. They do not go the extra 5 years, because that would require them to confront an uncomfortable decision.

Their tax cuts will expire within that second 5 years. They intend to renew those tax cuts. But if they renew those tax cuts that were passed in 2002, 2003 and 2001, if they renew those tax cuts, the budget will never balance, at least not on any chart we have got or any forecast that is likely to be made. It will be in deficit for as far out as the eye can see.

We, however, have taken our budget and run it out 10 years, and we have made certain assumptions about tax cuts. We protect middle-income tax cuts. We call for the extension of the marriage penalty provisions. We call for extension of the child tax credit at $1,000. We call for extension of the 10 percent bracket. So we protect middle-class tax cuts.

In addition, we protect the estate tax. We protect the reforms in the estate tax and call for a reduction in the estate tax by substantial increases in the unified estate and gift tax credits.

What do we do? This is most important. After doing these things, spending $10 billion over 5 years, more than they commit to education, $4 billion more to the environment, all down the line with critical priorities, veterans health care, $2.5 billion more than the President provides for veterans health care because veterans deserve it, we promised it, and they are stacked up trying to get appointments at veterans hospitals today. We have taken care of critical priorities with a really discriminating eye as to what really matters.

In the process, we have also provided for a fiscal framework that will balance the budget within 8 years, by 2012, will accumulate less debt each year, less deficit each year, than the Republican bill that is the main bill on the floor tomorrow. Our substitute will accumulate less debt, smaller deficits, and will balance by the year 2012.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

The gentleman makes an excellent point. If the $521 billion were not reduced or diminished by the offset of the Social Security surplus, which is about $160 billion, it would instead be $681 billion, instead of $521 billion. In truth, he was here when we voted to do it. We have taken Social Security off budget. We acknowledge that the moneys in that trust fund are being accumulated today to be spent in the very near future, and they should not be consolidated with and diminish other accounts. You should look at the budget bottom line without offsetting the Social Security surplus gains.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, the word ``PAYGO'' will be used frequently in this debate. In 1990, as we were trying to get our hands around the deficit, we came up with some budget process changes that had enormous significance. They were scoffed at at the time, but they have worked remarkably well.

One was the pay-as-you-go rule, or PAYGO rule. What it provided was if anyone wants to cut taxes, he must either cut taxes in one place in the code and raise them elsewhere, or find an entitlement benefit and cut it by an amount commensurate with the tax cut so that it is deficit neutral, it does not enlarge the deficit.

By the same token, if one wants to enhance, enlarge, liberalize an entitlement, benefit, it either has to be paid for with a new revenue stream or you have to cut another entitlement somewhere in order to offset it and make it deficit neutral.

I will put your favorite chart up.

The green is surplus. It is deficit diminution. The red is a growing deficit.

The PAYGO rule was adopted for 5 years, renewed again for 5 years in 1997, and expired in 2002, and has not been renewed. But for the PAYGO rule, the tax cuts that were passed in the early 2000 period by the Bush administration could not have come to the House floor.

Offset, fully offset.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada.

I thank the gentlewoman for her contribution.

Madam Speaker, going back to this chart, I think it should be obvious to almost any citizen, every fair-minded person, that a budget accumulating a deficit of $3 trillion to $4 trillion over the next 10 years, and possibly more, plotted by this line right here, is a budget that is not sustainable and should not be passed.

The Republicans have brought to the floor and will bring up tomorrow a budget resolution that, in effect, hides the outyear consequences because they simply quit in 2009. They do not go further. They do not extrapolate what will happen when the tax cuts, passed in 2001, 2002 and 2003, are made permanent. But what will happen is shown on this chart: the deficit will never get better. We have decided that this kind of problem requires bold decisions, and this budget resolution brought to the floor tomorrow by the majority party does not make them.

We are offering instead an alternative. It could be bolder, but it is definitely a step forward and a step in the right direction. Our budget fiscally will sustain smaller deficits each year and every year from 2005 through 2014 because we do not fear the extension of our budget into the outyears, because we propose a path through those years that will eventually bring us to balance. Indeed, our budget will balance in 8 years, by the year 2012, using realistic and reasonable assumptions. We will accumulate less debt, we will have smaller deficits, and we will put the budget back in balance.

Madam Speaker, let me emphasize too that in doing so, we will provide the same basic level for national defense as our Republican colleagues, and we will up them one. We will provide $5 billion more than they provide for homeland defense. We will protect the middle-income tax cuts, as I said earlier, the marriage penalty, the 10 percent bracket, the child tax credit. We will even provide that the estate tax should be substantially reformed by significantly increasing the estate and gift tax credits.

Within that same context, we will provide $10 billion more than our Republican colleagues do over 5 years, $10 billion more for education. We will provide $2.2 billion more for the environment. We will provide $5 billion, as I said, more for homeland security. And over 10 years, we will provide $6.6 billion more for veterans health care.

We have been discriminating and careful about the increases we have made. We have picked our priorities with care. But we protected those things that are essentially important, the safety net and important programs like veterans health care, as they should be protected; but we have still protected our children and our future by bringing the budget to balance within 8 years.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation and will be back to the floor tomorrow to pick up where we leave off tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the outstanding career of an extraordinary United States Army Reserve officer, Lieutenant Colonel Paula Shaun Lorick. General George C. Marshall once said, ``There is no limit to the good you can do if you let someone else take the credit for it.'' Lt Col Paula Lorick spent here career in the Army proving that principle.

During twenty-five years of exemplary service, Lt Col Lorick embodied the duty, loyalty, and love of country, the selfless service and personal courage that are the core values of the United States Army. Since November 16, 1978, Lt Col Lorick has served in some of the Army's most demanding positions, and served always with distinction. She was a Finance Company Commander, a Postal Company Commander, a key staff member with the Joint Operations Center at US Atlantic Command. In addition to her administrative assignments, Lt Col Lorick was a warfighter, deploying to Dhahran in Saudi Arabia at the height of the Persian Gulf War, and earning the Southwest Asia Service Medal and the Kuwait Liberation Medal.

Lt Col Lorick pulled other demanding duty as Deputy Director, Military Member Support and Ombudsman Services with the Employer Support of the Guard/Reserve Organization for the past three years. She played a key role in helping Guard and Reserve members make the transition from civilian jobs to deployment status in support of Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Today marks the end of Lt Col Lorick's long and distinguished career. Having been diagnosed with cancer, Lt Col Lorick is being medically retired in a ceremony fittingly held in the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes. In a rare event, Lt Col Lorick is being awarded the Legion of Merit medal, a medal typically reserved for higher-ranking officers. It is a well-deserved, parting tribute from a grateful nation.

I offer Lt Col Lorick our gratitude for her service, our congratulations on the honor bestowed upon her today, and our prayers and support in the months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting for the record the second half of the graduation address given by Arch Barrett at the Naval Postgraduate School Joint Professional Military Education Course in June, 2003. I submitted the other half for the Record on February 24. I commend Arch's speech to all those with an interest in the founding of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation, and I am proud to enter it into the Record.

Reflections on Leadership in Defense and Professional Military

Education Reform

As you well know, White's retirement did not end Congress's

involvement in correcting the problems Jones identified. A

large part of the credit for keeping the issue alive and

finally succeeding in enacting fundamental changes must be

credited to the then little-known, and very junior,

Representative from Missouri, Ike Skelton.

Congressman Skelton was about 50 years old at the time; he

was and is, tall and slim, and has a studious air. He also

has the gift of quickly conveying to even the briefest

acquaintances his interest in, and respect for, them as human

beings. An avid reader of military history, Skelton was one

of the first members of Congress to grasp the significance of

Jones' criticisms of the existing organization. Although he

was not a member of White's subcommittee, Skelton probably

attended more of the hearings than any member except White.

He sat on the dais, listened to testimony, and patiently

waited his turn to ask penetrating questions. In 1983,

Skelton introduced his own legislation for revamping the

Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was

based on his conversations with Gen. Maxwell Taylor. Skelton

testified in support of his bill before the Investigations

Subcommittee. He continued to attend almost every hearing for

the next three years even though was never a member of the

Subcommittee. During mark-ups and floor debates he defended

the proposed legislation. He played a pivotal role in shaping

the final outcome.

I will tell you what happened as a consequence of White,

Skelton and Jones's efforts in a few minutes.

First, however, I would like you to ponder a few questions.

Why did Jones and White put so much effort into defense

reform when they knew nothing could happen in 1982 and that

they would not be in office after that year?

Why did White, a former Marine and very conservative

Democrat who had a solid record of supporting higher defense

budgets and Pentagon legislative proposals, choose to take on

the Pentagon in his last nine months as a legislator? It must

have taken a lot of soul searching for him to reverse course

and oppose the Pentagon. He could just as easily have

sidestepped the issue and quietly retired from public

service.

Why did Skelton, also a strong advocate of the Department

of Defense, spend so much time over a period of more than a

decade wrestling with defense organization matters? As a

junior Congressman, Skelton had to be concerned with his

reelection prospects. Defense reform probably never garnered

one vote for any congressman.

Finally, Why did Jones knowingly incur the wrath of the

military community that had anointed him with such success?

He soon became more vilified by his former colleagues than an

American Idol contestant that Simon decides to ridicule.

The answer to these questions, in my opinion, is that

General Jones and Representatives White and Skelton were

leaders in the best sense of the word. Their behavior reveals

four essential characteristics of leadership.

First, Leaders select their goals and steadfastly pursue

them. We followers must hope that the goals our leaders

choose are worthy. In this case they were. These leaders

chose the harder right rather than the easier wrong.

Second, Leaders shoulder their responsibilities. Both White

and Jones readily accepted their responsibilities even though

they involved personal hardship. Skelton chose to assume

added responsibilities because he recognized the need for

leadership.

Third, Leaders sometimes have to show the way by going

first, acting as a guide to others. As you will see, White,

Skelton, and Jones's efforts eventually led to a fundamental

reordering of the entire Armed Forces of the United States.

Fourth, Leaders must constantly prepare themselves. They

must be knowledgeable, and be perceived by others as

knowledgeable. Representatives White and Skelton were

unschooled in the defense reorganization issues.

Consequently, they dedicated untold hours to gaining

knowledge and understanding of the issues that confronted

them. Because White prepared himself, he garnered the support

of the committee and the House of Representatives. Because

Skelton prepared himself, he was able to shape the final

outcome.

What happened after Jones and White retired in 1982? Were

they vindicated? Yes. But it took four more years of effort.

Other legislators saw what White had accomplished and

considered his efforts ``unfinished business.'' These leaders

included Republican Senators Barry Goldwater, Bill Cohen, and

Strom Thurmond, Democratic Senators Sam Nunn and Carl Levin,

and Representatives Bill Nichols, Les Aspin, and, of course,

Ike Skelton. To a man, these Congressmen possessed strong

pro-defense records. All took a stand against the Pentagon

and the White House. All were strongly criticized. As

leaders, they exemplified the traits first demonstrated by

Jones, White, and Skelton.

The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization

Act of 1986 rewarded their efforts. The legislation attempts

to ensure that when America goes to war the services work

together as joint integrated teams of land, sea, and air

forces. It strengthened field commanders like Gen.

Schwarzkopf in the Persian Gulf War and Gen. Franks in

Afghanistan and Iraq today. It also streamlined and unified

the chain of command to the field commanders, elevated the

chairman above the parochial Joint Chiefs of Staff, and

ensured that talented and qualified service officers like you

in this audience are assigned to the multi-service staffs.

Representative Skelton was responsible for a fundamentally

important amendment that gives the Vice Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff the powers he enjoys today. He was selected

as one of the seven conferees on the Goldwater-Nichols Act.

He negotiated wording with Sen. Nunn that gives the unified

commanders some of the extraordinary command authorities they

enjoy today. Finally, he headed the Panel on Military

Education that I spoke of earlier that was largely

responsible for much of the architecture of military

education today.

I would be the last to claim that the Goldwater-Nichols Act

has been the sole reason for the turn-around in U.S. military

performance since 1986. Nevertheless, it has played a

significant role in the string of successful military

operations since then including Operation Just Cause in

Panama, the Persian Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti,

Afghanistan, and Iraq. Observing these results, the defense

establishment long ago reversed itself and embraced the

principles of joint military command and operations

established in the Goldwater-Nichols Act. This record of

success is a tremendous pay-off for the efforts of Gen.

Jones, Chairman White, and Representative Skelton--not only

for themselves but also for the nation they served.

This record of success is also a credit to you in this

audience and the entire armed forces of the United States. It

is a privilege for me to have a formal opportunity to express

my gratitude to you. As an older person, I long ago left the

ranks of defenders and joined those who must be defended. I,

for one, very much appreciate the sacrifices you are prepared

to make for me, and for all of your fellow citizens.

At the beginning of my remarks, I admitted asking myself

why I would choose to speak about leadership. Having thought

about my experience observing White, Jones, and Skelton, I

soon realized precisely why I chose to talk to you on that

subject on the occasion of your graduation from JOINT

professional military education. I chose to speak about

leadership because it would allow me to remind you graduates,

as you rejoin your service comrades and assume ever-greater

responsibilities, that you have an opportunity to be genuine

leaders--leaders writ large. You have an opportunity to

choose to attempt to make a difference, as did White,

Skelton, and Jones, to select worthy goals and make a

dedicated effort to achieve them. You will encounter

opportunities to shoulder responsibilities that you can

easily evade, to choose the harder right rather than the

easier wrong. You will face the choice of whether to continue

to prepare yourself to the best of your ability by dint of

hard work and study to be a competent leader. I firmly

believe that if you are to be satisfied with your life in

general, and your performance in the profession of arms in

particular, you will choose to assume the burden and reap the

rewards of leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record a speech given by a former staffer of the House Armed Services Committee, Arch Barrett. Arch is one of the most unassuming people I know, but was one of the most remarkable and able staffers I've met during my 20 years on Capitol Hill.

Arch had an undergraduate degree from both the West Point and Harvard, and later got his Ph.D. in political economy and government from Harvard. He entered the Air Force as a second lieutenant in 1957, saw plenty of action in Vietnam, and retired as a colonel in 1981. While in the Air Force, he received the Distinguished Flying Cross, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal with 12 oak leaf clusters, the Joint Service and Air Force Commendation Medals, and the Vietnam Service Medal.

As distinguished as his military record is, his greatest effect on the military came after he became a staffer for the House Armed Services Committee. If it were not for Arch Barrett, I do not believe Congress would have enacted the Goldwater-Nichols Act. Goldwater- Nichols forced the separate branches of the Armed Services to work cooperatively, and our forces would not be nearly as effective today had it not been for the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The Pentagon fought Goldwater-Nichols tooth and nail, and it took us about 4 years to actually pass the legislation. Whenever the Pentagon raised an objection, we sent Arch Barrett over and he'd argue with the naysayers until they ran out of objections and had to relent. It was a virtuoso performance by someone who had mastered the subject matter.

Arch Barrett is now a professor at the Navy Post-Graduate School in Monterrey, still serving his country. He gave the graduation address to the Naval Postgraduate School's Joint Professional Military Education Course in June 2003. In that speech, Arch of course downplayed his own role in establishing Goldwater-Nichols, but did recognize important contributions from several Members of Congress. One of those is a man I, like Arch Barrett, admire--my good friend and colleague from Missouri, the Ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton.

I commend Arch's speech to all those with an interest in the founding of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation, and I am proud to enter it into the Record.

Reflections on Leadership in Defense and Professional Military

Education Reform

(By Archie D. Barrett)

Sixteen years ago, in 1987, Congressman Les Aspin asked me

whether there was an uncompleted task in the area of Defense

Department restructuring that could be assigned to

Representative Ike Skelton. Aspin was the chairman of the

Committee on Armed Services of the U. S. House of

Representatives. Skelton was a mid-level Democrat on the

Committee who was intensely interested in improving the

quality and performance of our Armed Forces. I was a member

of Mr. Aspin's Committee staff.

At the time, the Pentagon was making little progress in

implementing the education

provisions of the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act. The Act

required a reassessment and revamping of professional

military education to assure that it supported the new

emphasis on joint military planning and operations. I

suggested to Chairman Aspin that Rep. Skelton could provide a

signal contribution to the improvement of the nation's armed

forces if he could be persuaded to lead a congressional panel

charged with bringing PME into line with the goals of the

Goldwater-Nichols Act. Subsequently, Rep. Skelton seized on

the opportunity and ultimately fathered the significant

changes in Professional Military Education that have

culminated in your presence here as JPME graduates at the

Naval Postgraduate School.

My remarks today will be addressed to the leadership

displayed by Rep. Skelton and two other individuals that

eventually led to this gathering.

We usually think of a leader as someone who is in charge or

who heads an organization. I for one barely qualify. My most

extraordinary experience in that regard was leading aircraft

on night combat missions in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam

War. But the aircrews I commanded came together for only one

mission and very little ``leadership'', as we usually think

of it, was involved. On the other hand, many of you in the

audience have been, or will be, called upon to lead in the

traditional sense. You may rightly ask what I could convey to

you on the subject. I certainly asked that question of myself

when I began to contemplate this address.

My answer is that I have had the privilege of observing

others use their ability, their positions, and their prestige

to exert leadership on matters of great importance to our

country. Basically, a leader influences other people to

behave as he or she wishes. The leaders I will discuss

influenced the behavior of hundreds of thousands of members

of the armed forces, including you in this audience. It is

because of my experience with those men that I can discuss

aspects of leadership.

At about the time you graduates were attending high school,

I retired from the Air Force and joined the staff of the

Armed Services Committee. In February 1982, General David

Jones, the nation's most senior military officer, testified

that there were fundamental flaws in the structure of the

highest military body in our Armed Forces, the Joint Chiefs

of Staff--or JCS, as it is often called. He proposed that

Congress legislate far-reaching changes.

Gen. Jones was chairman of the JCS. At the time, he was in

his late `50s. He was a tall, dark haired, distinguished

looking man in his Air Force uniform with the 4 stars on each

shoulder.

The general charged that the JCS, a committee consisting of

the chiefs of each service, had difficulty making decisions

and providing advice to the President from an overall

national defense perspective because each chief aggressively

pursued the interests of his own service. Moreover, he

claimed, the service chiefs had used their positions on the

JCS to weaken the field commanders--the CINCs--whose mission

it is to plan and conduct military operations. Each service

chief wanted to keep as much control of his soldiers,

sailors, airmen, or marines as possible. Each chief also

sought to maximize his service's budget for tanks, planes, or

ships regardless of the needs of the other services. It is no

wonder, then, that when the services were called on to work

together in military operations, their joint performance was

often unsatisfactory.

Most of you in this room are accustomed to hearing of

nothing but an unbroken string of military successes during

your lifetime. Those of us who are older remember a much more

uneven pattern of military performances. Jones could point to

a whole string of flawed military operations to support his

allegations.

In Vietnam, the JCS disregarded the principle of unity of

command. There were two land chains of command and four air

chains of command largely because of each service's

sensitivity about placing its forces under the command of a

general or admiral of another service.

In 1980, the services were unable to work together in an

attempt to rescue American Embassy hostages in Iran. Two

aircraft collided on the ground killing several servicemen

and dooming the operation. The subsequent investigation

revealed gaping disconnects among the services in training

for the operation and, once again, flaws in the chain of

command.

Going back to World War II, friendly fire from Navy ships

shot down Army aircraft during the invasion of Sicily killing

paratroopers and aircrews due to inadequate communications

and coordination among the services.

Also, in World War II, the Army and the Navy divided the

Pacific into two commands, one headed by Gen. MacArthur and

the other by Admiral Nimitz, because they could not agree on

a unified command structure. The result was a near disaster

at Leyte Gulf that could have prolonged the war.

In 1983, a year after Gen. Jones first testified, 241 young

servicemen were killed in a terrorist attack on a Marine

barracks in Beirut. The investigation revealed glaring

inadequacies in the military chain of command that wound its

way from the Pentagon through Army, Air Force, and Navy flag

officers to the Marine colonel and his unit on the ground.

In that same year, it took over 6000 U.S. troops to defeat

600 Cubans on Grenada. After action reports revealed that

inadequate communications among the services hindered naval

gunfire and air-to-ground support of the troops in combat.

These and other flawed military operations were not merely

unfortunate incidents. As you well know, the price of

substandard performance of our armed forces in war is paid in

the lives of young Americans.

Obviously, General Jones was raising issues of fundamental

importance to the American people. But why did the general

voice his criticisms on Capitol Hill? Why did Jones not rely

on his Commander-in-Chief to address the problems? One answer

is that the administration was not interested. A more

fundamental answer involves a fact many people do not

realize. The Constitution makes the Congress, not the

President, responsible for the organization of the nation's

defense. The U. S. House of Representatives delegates

oversight of that responsibility to the Committee on Armed

Services, and further, to one of its subcommittees.

Representative Richard White, a Democrat from El Paso, was

the chairman of the subcommittee responsible for overseeing

defense organization in 1982. White was about 70. He was tall

and slim. He was soft-spoken. His ruddy complexion reflected

the time he had spent in the West Texas sun. His subcommittee

focused primarily on investigations--defense contractor

fraud, for example. Almost a quarter century had passed since

Congress enacted major changes in defense organization.

Understandably, Chairman White knew little about the subject.

But he was acutely aware that he was responsible for that

part of the Constitution that assigned defense organization

to Congress.

In April, White convened hearings to determine whether Gen.

Jones' criticisms were valid and to ascertain what action

Congress should take. The hearings lasted until late July and

covered over 1000 pages. The Reagan Administration strongly

opposed reorganization. With few exceptions, the Pentagon

witnesses opposed change. On the other hand, many witnesses

who had previously served in the Pentagon or White House in

high civilian positions sided with Jones. They emphasized

that the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as constituted, simply did

not and could not provide adequate military advice to the

President due to the conflicting service interests that

dominated the chiefs' thinking. A number of high-ranking

retired military officers also agreed with Jones. Others

strongly disagreed.

Mr. White presided over every hearing. Listening to the

conflicting views of the witnesses soon provided him the

education in defense organization issues that he lacked when

the hearings began. He made himself an expert through his

perseverance.

Only a few other congressmen, however, attended the

hearings regularly. Focusing on defense organization is about

as exciting as watching paint dry. Moreover, with the

Pentagon leadership and the President adamantly opposed to

changes, few legislators felt that the investment of their

time would be worth the effort.

At the conclusion of the hearings, Chairman White

introduced a bill to reorganize the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He

had decided that Jones was right. White's subcommittee

approved his bill with few changes. One Congressman stated

that he did not know much about the complicated issues

addressed in the bill. He could confidently support the bill,

he said, because Chairman White had presided over the lengthy

hearings and was an expert who knew what must be done.

White presented his bill to the full Committee on Armed

Services in August. The Committee approved it and referred it

to the House of Representatives. In the fall, with Chairman

White leading the debate, the House passed the bill and

referred it to the Senate. In December, Mr. White persuaded

Senator Tower, a fellow Texan, to hold a hearing on his bill

before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

That is the end of my story about Rep. White. Soon after

the December hearing Congress adjourned and White's bill

died, as do all bills that have not been enacted at the end

of each Congress. There was no time for the Senate to

consider the legislation. Moreover, Mr. White disappeared

from Capitol Hill at the same time. You see, he had long ago

decided to retire and did not run for reelection even though

he would have had no trouble winning another term.

Interestingly, by that time General Jones had also retired.

He continued to push for reorganization, however.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor R. Lewis Shaw of South Carolina for his service to our state and great contribution to our environment. Lewis Shaw is retiring as Deputy Commissioner of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), a position he has held since 1984. During his long tenure, Lewis Shaw has become equated with DHEC and the whole gamut of environmental regulation: clean air, clean water, toxic and nuclear waste disposal, and waste remediation. He has supervised the state's involvement in all aspects of the clean-up of Savannah River Site. His command of the issues and professional ability are such that Lewis Shaw has served as our state's chief environmental quality officer under both Republican and Democratic Governors.

Lewis Shaw was long ago recognized on the national as well as the state level. In 1985, Attorney General Meese appointed him to one of four State Environmental Directorships on the National Enforcement Council. He served on the Council from 1985-1990, and as Chairman in 1989. In 1988, Lewis Shaw helped create the Southern Environmental Enforcement Network (SEEN,) to facilitate the enforcement of environmental statutes, rules and regulations in member states. He served as Chairman of Southern Environmental Enforcement Network in 1991.

Lewis Shaw was a member of the governing body which founded the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI) in 1994. SAMI is an organization of stakeholders formed to explore the environmental stability of the Southern Appalachian Mountains and develop long-range plans to protect those resources. In 1997, Lewis Shaw was selected to serve as Chairman of SAMI. In 1999, he was elected President of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), the non-partisan organization of state environmental commissioners, after serving as secretary-treasurer and vice-president. From 2001-2004, Lewis Shaw served as President of the Environmental Research Institute of the States, ECOS's research arm.

Out of respect for him and his wide-ranging experience, Lewis Shaw has been called to testify before numerous committees of Congress, representing the views of South Carolina, and on occasion, all the states on environmental issues.

I have had the good fortune of working with Lewis Shaw on some tough issues: on the multiple problems at Savannah River Site, on a toxic waste landfill at Pinewood and a hazardous waste incinerator in Rock Hill; at Superfund sites in Cherokee and Chester Counties; on ozone exceedences in York County and ozone transport, and on clean water throughout my district. 1 could always count on Lewis Shaw to understand the problem and know the law, and to present solutions that were fair and feasible. He has been an asset to South Carolina for 33 years and to me for the 22 years that I have served in Congress. He will be sorely missed and hard to replace, but he leaves a great legacy: a much better environment and a model of performance that everyone in the field of environmental regulation would do well to emulate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, when we began this quest several years ago, our object was to make Medicare better by filing a big gap in its coverage. This conference report covers that gap with a drug benefit that is barely adequate and badly in need of redesign. The bill then goes on not to make Medicare better, but to move Medicare toward privatization, heavily subsidizing managed care with funds that could better be used to improve the meager drug coverage this bill provides.

I will vote against this bill not to kill it but to send it back to an open conference, where all participate, in an effort to make the bill worthy of our senior citizens who badly need this coverage, and depend on Medicare.

Here are some of the problems and objections that I find with this bill:

H.R. 1 couples meager drug coverage with major changes that move medicare toward privatization. The terms of coverage seem reasonable at first until you realize that they are not guaranteed. The premium of $35, the deductible of $250, and the co-payment of 25 percent are illustrative of what insurance companies may offer, but not written in stone. In any event, coverage stops after $2,250, just when it is needed most, and catastrophic coverage does apply until one has spent $5,100. For this first $5,100 in coverage, the consumer pays $4,020. Put another way, the plan pays 20 percent the consumer pays 80 percent. Catastrophic coverage starts after $5,100 has been spent, and seems reasonable, until you realize that this threshold, like all the other terms of coverage, is indexed to the rising cost of prescription drugs, and is likely to double in ten years. This is meager coverage, and a poor trade-off for all the changes crammed into this package to move Medicare toward privatization.

H.R. 1 contains a drug benefit that is flawed and needs to be fixed before it becomes law. Rather than providing continuous coverage, the Medicare benefit has a $2,850 gap in coverage that will leave millions of seniors without drug coverage for a good part of the year, even though they continue to pay premiums.

The drug benefit has a deductible of $250, and a coverage gap that begins at $2,250 in drug spending and ends at $5,100. According to CBO, this coverage gap of $2,850 will double to $5,065 by 2013. The structure of the benefit means that there will be several months out of the year when seniors are paying premiums and are not receiving any additional drug coverage. This odd benefit design, with its coverage gap does not currently exist as an insurance product.

H.R. 1 needlessly complicates prescription drug coverage by making it available only through private insurance policies and not through medicare. Even through stand-alone drug policies don't exist, and health insurance companies, fearing adverse selection, have made clear that they do not wish to write it, this bill provides primarily for private insurance coverage. Out of disdain for Medicare, the bill does not choose the simple solution and make drug coverage a feature of Medicare. Instead, in one of many steps toward privatization, this bill calls for drug coverage to be written by private insurance companies, adding unnecessary cost, complexity, and uncertainty.

H.R. 1 requires that drug coverage be purchased from a private insurance company even when there is only one underwriter and no competition. In regions where only one insurance company offers a drug- alone policy, Medicare will not provide ``fallback'' coverage under this bill, so long as there is a Medicare PPO or HOM in the area. The beneficiary will have three unappealing choices: take the coverage at a non-competitive price, leave Medicare fee-for-service and join the HMO, or go without drug coverage.

H.R. 1 bars the Federal Government from using the purchasing power of 40 million seniors to drive down the price of drugs--H.R. 1 flat prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating better prices for prescription drugs. The bill divides Medicare's 41 million beneficiaries into numerous regions and to one or more private plans within each region. This fragmentation runs contrary to trends at the state level, where states have used the purchasing power of big beneficiary pools to negotiate better prices. This prohibition also flies in the face of prevailing federal practice, which requires government officials to seek the best possible price when spending the taxpayers' money--especially when spending $400 billion.

H.R. 1 overpays HMOs to induce them to join medicare and draw seniors into private plans--H.R. 1 provides $16.5 billion to sweeten subsidies paid to managed care plans and induce them to enter markets they have not found profitable. After spending billions to subsidize managed care plans, this bill then forces traditional Medicare to compete with the plans. This competition, known benignly as ``premium support,'' will destabilize Medicare as we have known it and lead to premium increases for seniors who want to stay with the government-run program.

According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Medicare already overpays managed care plans by 19.6 percent. They are paid 19.6 percent more than their members would cost if enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

H.R. 1 increases HMO payments by another $4.5 billion and sets up a $12 billion fund to induce private plans to enter new markets. According to MedPAC, these changes will result in overpayments to managed care plans of 25 percent.

Medicare fee-for-service will then have to compete with private plans in six metropolitan areas starting in 2010. Obviously, the increased payments will allow private plans an advantage in the competition, one they will enhance by marketing their services to healthy seniors.

Managed care plans have a record of designing and marketing benefit packages that appeal to healthy beneficiaries. As private plans ``cherry pick'' healthier beneficiaries, traditional Medicare will be stuck with sicker, more expensive beneficiaries. If competing private plans run costs below traditional Medicare, the beneficiaries in fee- for-service Medicare will be assessed the difference through their Part B premiums. Traditional Medicare premiums will spiral upwards, forcing seniors who cannot afford the rising premiums to move into private plans that limit their access to doctors. The process will repeat itself year after year, beginning an insurance `'death spiral'' that will destroy traditional Medicare.

H.R. 1 will cause over six million low-income seniors to be worse off--The 6.4 million low-income and disabled individuals who now receive health coverage from both Medicare and Medicaid will be worse off under this bill.

Under current law, when a benefit or service is covered by both Medicare and Medicaid Medicare serves as the primary payer and Medicaid ``wraps around'' that coverage. Medicaid fills gaps in coverage that exist under the Medicare benefit. Medicaid also picks up most or all of the beneficiary co-payments that Medicare charges.

This bill largely eliminates Medicaid's supplemental--or ``wrap around``--coverage under the new Medicare drug benefit. As a result, substantial numbers of poor elderly and disabled people would be forced to pay more for their prescriptions than they now do.

In addition, in cases where Medicaid covers a prescription drug but the private plan that administers the Medicare drug benefit in the local area does not provide that particular drug under Medicare, poor, elderly and disabled beneficiaries who now receive the drug through Medicaid could lose access to it.

Under current law, low-income beneficiaries have co-payments that run from zero to as high as $3; but these amounts do not increase from year to year. The conference report raises cost-sharing for those with the lowest incomes by requiring $1 and $3 co-payments for beneficiaries whose income is less than $8,980 a year and $2 and $5 co-payments for beneficiaries whose income is between $8,980 and $12,123 a year. In addition, the $1 and $3 co-payments grow at CPI (1.5 percent to 3 percent). The $2 and $5 co-payments will rise at the same level as prescription drug spending, which is projected to average 10 percent a year, far exceeding the annual 1.5-3 percent. Social Security COLAs.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this provision will result in higher drug costs for 4.8 million seniors.

H.R. 1 will cause nearly 3 million seniors to lose retiree coverage-- According to CBO, some employers will stop providing retiree coverage due to the structure of the drug bill, and this will result in 2.7 million seniors losing retiree drug coverage, in many cases far better than this plan.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, 11.7 million seniors currently have retiree coverage through their former employers. However, 23% of these seniors, or 2.7 million individuals, will lose this coverage. This loss of coverage results from the structure of the drug benefit, which gives employers an incentive to drop retiree coverage.

The drug bill targets Federal assistance toward those seniors who lack supplemental private drug coverage, most noticeably through the requirement that payments made by supplemental coverage don't count toward the beneficiaries' out-of-pocket limit. In effect, the out-of- pocket provision reduces Federal subsidies for beneficiaries with supplemental insurance. As a result, it provides a clear financial disincentive for employers to supplement the benefit.

Second, some employers see the enactment of a drug benefit as an opportunity to reduce the costs and risks of providing drug coverage.

H.R. 1 spends nearly $7 billion on tax shelters for the healthy and wealthy--Rather than marshaling funds to improve drug coverage, H.R. 1 diverts $7 billion to Health Security Accounts, which have nothing to do with Medicare drug coverage, and create an unprecedented tax break, which could undermine our employer-sponsored insurance system.

Under H.R. 1, tax-advantaged savings accounts to pay out-of-pocket medical expenses would be made universally available. These could be used with high-deductible health policies, but not with the comprehensive health coverage traditionally offered by employers. Holders of these accounts could make tax-deductible deposits, watch the earnings compound tax-free, and pay no tax upon withdrawal if the funds are used for medical expenses.

This would establish an unprecedented and lucrative tax shelter. In the existing tax code, when funds deposited in a tax-favored account are deductible, withdrawals are taxed. On the other hands, withdrawals are not taxed when deposits are not deducted. There is no precedent in the tax code for providing both ``front end'' and ``back end'' tax breaks. The political pressure to do the same for other types of savings and retirement accounts could become irresistible. A proliferation of such tax-free accounts would only send Federal deficits higher.

These savings accounts would also undermine comprehensive health insurance. Healthy, affluent workers would have an incentive to opt out of comprehensive health insurance in favor of the Health Security Accounts. They would receive a large tax break, and would not be much affected by switching to a high-deductible health policy since they generally use fewer health services. If large numbers of such workers opt out of comprehensive plans, the pool of people left in comprehensive plans would be older and sicker, causing premiums for comprehensive insurance to rise significantly.

That, in turn, would drive still more healthy workers out of comprehensive insurance, making those that remain even more costly to insure, adding pressure on employers to stop offering comprehensive coverage. Older and sicker workers could wind up paying more for health coverage or losing it altogether and becoming uninsured.

This suggests what could be done to make this bill better if it were taken back to a fair and open conference committee. The $7 billion allocated to Health Security Accounts and the $17 billion allocated to subsidizing HMOs could be used instead to narrow the ``doughnut hole,'' the zone where there is no coverage between $2,250 and $5,100. This is just one example of how this bill can be fixed and improved, and should be before it is passed.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support of H.R. 3287, which honors four South Carolina heroes. Because of the courage of Joseph A. DeLaine, Harry Briggs, Eliza Briggs and Levi Pearson, South Carolinians live in a better State; but more important, Americans live in a better country. I can think of no tribute to these brave South Carolinians more deserving or appropriate than a Congressional Gold Medal.

I have the same story to tell that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) just told, but I cannot possibly tell it with the same empathy that he related it, so I will not rehearse the facts that we have just heard, which are stirring. I will enter those for the Record.

Let me simply say that, Mr. Speaker, I have lived all my life in South Carolina. I can imagine the resistance and intimidation that Joseph DeLaine and Levi Pearson and Harry and Eliza Briggs faced. These brave Americans stood up for justice, and for their courage they paid a heavy price. Today we remember Dr. Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall, and we should. They were the giants of the civil rights movement. But without brave pioneers, foot soldiers like Joseph A. DeLaine, Levi Pearson, and Harry and Eliza Briggs, our schools would not have been desegregated in 1954. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1965 may have been passed but not in those years. They sparked those events.

I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for conceiving and spearheading this resolution. I ask that all Members of the House join us in voting to award Congressional Gold Medals posthumously to the Reverend DeLaine, to Mr. and Mrs. Harry Briggs, and to Mr. Levi Pearson. In the words of Dr. King, they made this country rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, that all men are created equal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support of H.R. 3287, honoring four South Carolina heroes. Because of the courage of Joseph DeLaine, Harry Briggs, Eliza Briggs, and Levi Pearson, South Carolinians live in a better state and Americans live in a better country. I can think of no tribute to these brave South Carolinians more deserving or appropriate than a Congressional Gold Medal.

In 1949-50, there were 6,531 black students enrolled in the Clarendon County public schools and 2,375 whites. The schools were separate and unequal. Clarendon County that

year spent $179 per white student and $43 per black student. Reverend Joseph DeLaine was a teacher in Clarendon County. He attended a statewide meeting of the NAACP and heard the president decry segregation and lay down a challenge saying, ``No teacher or preacher in South Carolina has the courage to find a plaintiff who will test the legality of discriminatory bus transportation.'' The Reverend DeLaine was moved to action. He went to the Clarendon County School Board to ask for a bus to carry children to and from Scotts Branch High School. He pointed out that bus service was available to white students at other county schools, and asked simply for the same bus service for black students attending Scotts Branch. When he was turned down, he appealed to the State Superintendent of Education in Columbia and the U.S. Attorney General, all to no avail. Reverend DeLaine then enlisted Levi Pearson, a farmer with children at Scotts Branch, to be plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Clarendon County Board of Education. Levi Pearson v. County Board of Education was brought but dismissed in 1948 on a technicality. Levi Pearson's farm straddled the school district boundary, and his home was held to be outside the school district's boundary. The court ruled that Pearson had no standing, and dismissed his suit.

Undaunted, Reverend DeLaine, worked with the NAACP to draft a new petition to the State Board of Education seeking not just school buses, but educational equality across the board for all black students in Clarendon County. A petition with the necessary signatures was presented to the board. The first name listed was Harry Briggs, a service station attendant in Summerton, South Carolina. In retribution, Reverend DeLaine was fired from his job at Scotts Branch, and Harry Briggs lost his service station job. The state school board refused to act.

Reverend DeLaine then sought the assistance of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and in particular a lawyer by the name of Harold Boulware in Columbia. Boulware, with the assistance of Thurgood Marshall, took the case and filed a new suit, Briggs v. Elliott, seeking equal educational opportunities for all black students in Clarendon County. By a 2-1 vote, a three-judge panel denied the plaintiffs in Briggs v. Elliott the relief they were seeking. Judge Waties Waring, another unsung hero, wrote a dissenting opinion in favor of the plaintiffs. Briggs v. Elliott was appealed to the Supreme Court, and eventually consolidated with four other cases, the first of which was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

Reverend DeLaine was in the Supreme Court's courtroom for the argument of Brown v. Board of Education. A reporter quoted him as saying: ``There were times when I thought I would go out of my mind because of this case, but if I had to do it again, I would. I feel it was worth it. I have a feeling that the Supreme Court is going to end segregation.''

He was not only brave but prescient. In 1954, a unanimous Supreme Court vindicated the efforts of the Reverend Joseph A. DeLaine with its unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education. It was a bittersweet victory for Reverend DeLaine. Forced out of Clarendon County on charges arising out of a confrontation with whites who threatened his home at night, he moved to Charlotte, North Carolina where he founded a church. Because of the outstanding warrant, he was effectively exiled from South Carolina and never able to return to Clarendon County.

Mr. Speaker, I have lived all my life in South Carolina and I can imagine the resistance and intimidation that Joseph DeLaine, Levi Pearson, and Harry and Eliza Briggs faced. These brave Americans stood up for justice and for their courage, they paid a heavy price. Today we remember Dr. Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall, as we should; they were the giants of the civil rights movement. But without brave pioneers like Joseph DeLaine, Levi Pearson, Harry and Eliza Briggs, our schools would not have been desegregated and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 would not have been passed.

I commend Congressman Clyburn for conceiving and spearheading this resolution, and I ask that all members of this House join us in voting to award Congressional gold medals posthumously to the Reverend DeLaine, to Mr. and Mrs. Harry Briggs, and to Mr. Levi Pearson. In the words of Dr. King, they made this country ``rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, that all men are created equal.''

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I am glad to see us put some quality-of-life provisions in it; and I commend the chairman, whom I have worked with for 20-odd years, for once again bringing a bill to closure.

I do have to call attention to the fact that this rule waives all points of order, which is typical; but in this case, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, I feel obliged to make my colleagues aware what it is we are waiving because it is not a good way to do business; it is not a good way to keep a budget.

This conference report contains two provisions that entail significant spending over and above the amounts allowed in the budget resolution. One allows concurrent receipt of military retirement benefits for retirees who also get VA disability benefits. The other commits the government to lease and purchase up to 20 or maybe even 100 new tanker aircraft.

No funds were added to this conference report to pay for either of these programs, and that is my problem. Between the two of them, they will entail new unfunded future commitments of approximately $40 billion, $22 billion for concurrent receipt, $18 billion for 100 new tanker aircraft.

As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I support the compromise on concurrent receipt, and I understand the need for new tankers; but I am concerned, and have to be, about the way we are doing this. The rule before us would waive the point of order that would otherwise lie against the conference report for some clear and substantial departures from the budget resolution that is supposed to be prevailing in this House.

We just finished the fiscal year 2003, Mr. Speaker, with the largest deficit in our peacetime history, $374 billion. The deficit for next year, fiscal year 2004, is likely to break that by $100 billion, even without the additional cost of these programs which are not included in any of CBO's or OMB's projections.

All I am saying is if concurrent receipt is a worthy benefit, and I think it is, then let us pay for it or at least let us recognize fully in the budget the cost of it. If we need these tankers, and I accept the arguments that we do, then let us pay for them. Let us make the argument and pay for them and set the priority in the budget. This bill does not do that, and this rule would allow Congress to flout the budget resolution without facing up to these costs. If Congress feels that it is necessary to abandon the budget resolution that supposedly prevails in the House and further increases the deficit, then we ought to be accountable for that decision. But this rule would make sure that no Member of this body will have the opportunity to demand such accountability.

Let me tell the Members specifically the two problems in the conference report with respect to these items that give me trouble. The conference report phases in a compromised version of concurrent receipt. In 2004 this would increase direct spending by $800 million. By 2013 this would increase annual cost to as much as $3.5 billion. This provision would cost an estimated $22 billion in additional direct spending over the next 10 years, none of which is provided for in the mandatory spending provisions of the budget resolution. That is why I call it a substantial departure.

There is another anomaly in the way concurrent receipt is treated. Since the mid-1980s, we have recognized military retirement costs through an accrual system that sets aside funds to cover the cost of retirement benefits we owe in the future for today's military service. The concurrent receipt provisions in this bill eliminate a reduction or offset in military retirement and thus increase military retirement benefits. Under current procedures, we should increase our accrual payments to account for the fact that we have just increased future spending on retirement benefits. This bill does not do that. It departs from a convention we adopted 20 years ago for reporting military retirement programs.

The conference agreement also includes language that was not in either bill to lease 20 tankers and then buy 80 more. In effect, what it allows is incremental funding, something we have not done for big procurement programs for a long, long time. It entails at least a liability of $4 billion, maybe as much as $18 billion, and yet none of this money is in the Air Force budget. None of this authority has been recognized. What we have here is an effort to obscure the fact that we are increasing the defense budget but not adding BA commensurate to the amount of the increase.

There are committees right now and next week railing against corporate misaccounting in this country and should be. But we should keep our own books in proper order in order to make such criticisms. This is not a way to budget. I support the bill and hope it does not constitute a precedent for the future.

Mr. Speaker, with a defense budget of $400 billion and an enormous range of issues, it is not easy to bring a conference to closure, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), as well as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for what they have achieved.

I rise in support of H.R. 1588, the conference report thereon, but I have some real concerns. First of all, I have already spoken to the failure of the underlying bill to accrue properly the budget authority that will be necessary to implement the compromise on concurrent receipt or the provisions for lease purchase of 100 tankers. I am concerned about the radical reform of civil service laws in the Department of Defense and the dispensation this bill gives to the Department of Defense from environmental laws that apply to everybody else. Also, I am concerned about the new and cumbersome strictures on cooperative threat reduction.

I am particularly disappointed in the provisions of this report that deal with low-level nuclear weapons. I believe the conferees should have stuck with the bipartisan compromise reached by the Committee on Armed Services and set forth in the defense bill that we passed last May. That compromise was sound enough that in July of this year when I offered a motion to instruct, those provisions were accepted and upheld by the House without dissent.

The administration began this year by stepping up its push for repeal on a ban of low-level nuclear weapons research and development, a ban which has been in the law for 10 years. There was little opposition here to broadening research into low-yield nuclear weapons, but there was bipartisan concern about going so far as engineering development. And so both the House and Senate authorization bills proposed changes to allow research into

low-yield nuclear weapons, but restricted any move into engineering development.

The Senate, on the other hand, repealed the so-called Spratt-Furse amendment entirely, but then backfilled the cavity with caveats barring testing or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons. They also added language requiring specific congressional authorization to move into development of any advanced nuclear concept project. These are the provisions included in the conference report.

By contrast, the House version amended existing law rather than repealing it. We explicitly authorized research, but we maintained a bar on development beyond detailed feasibility studies, the so-called 6.2a level of research and development.

Our compromise may have similar in consequences to the Senate approach, but I think it was superior in form because it makes clear that it is the policy of the United States not to develop low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. The House compromise, thus, gives stronger assurance that Congress will be an equal partner if that policy is reversed, if that decision is taken, and if there is a move to go beyond research.

When we adopted the Spratt-Furse amendment in the early 1990s, it came in the wake of an issue taken by the first President Bush whereby we withdrew a number of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and the Soviets responded in kind. This was a step back and a step forward for nuclear security throughout the world. This initiative helped us later on to persuade Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to forswear nuclear weapons.

If today the United States should move toward renewed development of nuclear weapons, especially weapons designed to be more usable due to their low-yield warheads, it sends the wrong signal.

Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report because it does many things I support, particularly for the quality of life for our troops, and also because I trust that the effect of the language in the report will be enough to forestall development of mini-nukes. I recommend support for the bill.