1:28 PM EST

Pete Sessions, R-TX 5th

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. GOSS) for allowing me a few minutes to talk about the budget, the Republican budget, that has run through committee.

The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. NUSSLE) in that committee has done a fabulous job and I want to talk about some of the great things that this budget does.

First of all, as the parent of a child with Down's syndrome, I am very pleased to know that we are going to continue providing schools with money for IDEA. It is important that this Congress understand that IDEA and the education of our children is important. We have increased funding.

We have made sure that as we go through this budget that we make sure that not one penny has been taken from Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Last night in the Committee on Rules, I had an opportunity to speak with not only the chairman of the Committee on the Budget but also the ranking member and asked the question specifically, is there one penny that we have taken out? That answer is no.

We have continued to make sure we pay down debt. We have continued to make sure that veterans receive not only an increase of the money we give them but that we continue to focus on the efficiency of those programs.

We make sure in this budget that not only do we talk about homeland security, which is probably the number one issue combined with winning the war, but we fully fund those requests that come from our President to make sure that those things happen with making sure the military and homeland security gets their money.

We are making sure that we do things to support funding of not only education and homeland security but we are also making sure that we are giving the money to NIH. NIH funding has doubled now since 1996. We are making sure that we take care of the needs of a growing Nation, a Nation that needs NIH to solve and give us cures related to medicine.

[Time: 13:30]

So what we are doing in this budget is going through and making sure that the priorities of this Nation are taken care of. We are increasing funding some places, but we are making sure that homeland security and the defense of this country is taken care of. At a time when we are at war, what we are doing is not having deficit spending. We are making sure that we end with a balance here. And at a time when increasingly it is more and more difficult to find enough money to keep spending, we are

making sure that priorities are taken care of.

I am proud of not only what this Republican bill does, but last night we heard from the other side, the Democrats, that they do not intend to offer a budget. I think it is very insincere for someone to come and attack you for doing the heavy lifting when in fact they do not present their own budget. It is easy to attack one piece or another, one place or another, but when you put together an entire budget, which is what we have done, I think it deserves the support of this House, and that is

what I support.

1:31 PM EST

Ike Skelton, D-MO 4th

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I speak as the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, and I speak with those who wear the uniform of our country in mind.

The vote on this resolution might well be the most important national defense vote cast this year. In my opinion, the rule that is being offered today shortchanges national defense. Let me explain.

The top line that is recommended is a $48 billion increase. I think that is fine. We have needed that for some time. However, there is a $10 billion so-called reserve fund that we are not allowed to appropriate. My amendment that was offered at the Committee on Rules, and that was denied, would fix that flaw and fix that error. So what this amounts to is a $10 billion zero, a cut in the proposed figure of $48 billion down to a $38 billion increase.

Under the Constitution, our duty is clear: article one, section 8 requires that the Congress of the United States raise and maintain the military. We cannot delegate that duty, as is proposed in this rule and in this resolution. We cannot give it to anyone else, the Secretary of Defense, though he is a fine man; the President, or anyone else. As Harry Truman once said, and the little sign said on his desk: ``The buck stops here.'' The buck stops on national security and national defense right

with us.

I cannot offer, as a result of the Committee on Rules' denial of my amendment, a pay increase that should equal the pay increase that the soldiers and those in uniform received last year. They cannot receive the military construction money that is needed. And just today, General Joe Ralston revealed in testimony and showed us in pictures the dilapidated family housing that our people live in in Europe. We need more Navy ships, ammunition, and unfunded requirements.

It is our duty. It is not a political thing; it is our duty under the Constitution to vote against this rule.

1:35 PM EST

Martin Frost, D-TX 24th

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. [Page: H1023]

Since September 11, Americans have united in historic fashion, pulling together as a national family to face down the new dangers of terrorism, and Democrats remain committed to ensuring our troops have all the resources they need to win the war on terrorism. There is no partisan debate over defending America. But that is not the only challenge facing us right now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that my friends on the other side of the aisle are great fans of Lewis Carroll. You remember Lewis Carroll. He is the fellow who wrote ``Alice in Wonderland.'' We have a situation where down is up and up is down. Republicans say, oh, we do not touch the Social Security surplus. We do not take a penny out of Social Security. Well, down is up and up is down, my colleagues, because, in fact, this budget uses $1 trillion of the Social Security and Medicare surplus the

first 5 years and $2 trillion over a 10-year period.

Over the past 12 years, America has fallen into a very deep and dangerous budgetary hole, one that poses a great threat to Social Security and other priorities like education, prescription drugs, and homeland security. Since Republicans passed their budget last year, America has lost $5 trillion of the proposed surplus. That is nearly 90 percent of our national nest egg down the drain.

Mr. Speaker, last year, we were planning to pay off America's national debt. This year, the Bush administration wants to increase the debt ceiling so all Americans can go deeper into debt. Before last year, we were using the Social Security surplus to strengthen Social Security. In fact, this House overwhelmingly passed five different lock boxes, pledging not to spend Social Security on other government programs. But this year, Republicans have broken their promise to America and offered a budget

that raids Social Security in each of the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to dig ourselves out of this hole and that is by working together as a national family to restore fiscal responsibility and honest budgeting. That is how families across the country operate. They sit down at the kitchen table and take an honest look at their expenses, their debts, and their income. Mr. Speaker, that is why Democrats have repeatedly urged Republicans to forget politics as usual and join us at the negotiating table to work out a bipartisan budget.

Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to even acknowledge the mess they have made or the threat it poses to Social Security. Instead, their budget cooks the books yet again and tries to pass off another bad check on the American people. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are hiding behind budget gimmicks and accounting tricks that no self-respecting accountant would stomach, unless he worked for Enron.

Republicans are desperate, Mr. Speaker. They are desperate to hide the fact that the Republican budget is a trillion dollar raid on Social Security, one that still increases the debt and shortchanges priorities like education and prescription drugs. Additionally, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. TAYLOR) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. SHOWS) have pointed out, Republicans are seriously shortchanging health care for veterans and military retirees.

Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the budget.

1:38 PM EST

Porter J. Goss, R-FL 14th

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Charlotte, North Carolina (Mrs. MYRICK), the hub of most good flights going to Florida these days, and a member who does great work on our Committee on Rules.

1:41 PM EST

Alcee L. Hastings, D-FL 23rd

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

Mr. Speaker, this budget is a case study in poor leadership and fiscal management. It serves as an example of what goes wrong when you fail to think ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the general theme of this year's budget resolution is a reckless disregard for the obvious. After all, the resolution does not account for the last 5 years of last year's tax cut, and it certainly does not account for real CBO numbers.

What the majority's figures do account for is a more than 5 percent cut in nondefense related spending and an additional $28 billion in tax cuts. They account for a 16 percent shortchanging of ``leave no child behind,'' and they account for the elimination of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

The resolution also accounts for cuts in health care, law enforcement, energy production, environmental protection, not enough money for election reform, housing for the elderly, the capital fund for housing, homeless assistance cuts; and all the way across the board we find this.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, what has happened is the lock box has been unlocked, thrown away, retooled, and made into an ATM machine.

1:42 PM EST

Saxby Chambliss, R-GA 8th

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to engage in a short colloquy with the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.

It is my desire to clarify where the increase in the money authorized for health-related spending will go. I would like to stress the importance of providing funding for the Center for Disease Control buildings and facilities in respect to winning the war on terrorism.

1:43 PM EST

Jim Nussle, R-IA 2nd

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be pleased to enter into that colloquy with the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia.

1:46 PM EST

Saxby Chambliss, R-GA 8th

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, can the gentleman clarify that the budget resolution will accommodate at least $300 million of the $4.3 billion for improvements to the buildings and facilities at the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, an amount that was authorized in the bioterrorism bill passed by the House and the Senate last year?

1:46 PM EST

Jim Nussle, R-IA 2nd

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, it would accommodate for a facility such as the gentleman has described in Atlanta, Georgia, $300 million for CDC.

1:46 PM EST

Gene Green, D-TX 29th

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, whatever this Congress does, we have to respect funding for national security. But while protecting ourselves from foreign enemies, we should fund programs that protect seniors and children, too. This budget fails to protect children or senior citizens.

In fact, according to this chart, this budget spends the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus for the next 10 years. For the next 3 years, we go into deficit spending over and above the surpluses in Medicare and Social Security. More than 40 million Americans are without health insurance, and yet there is nothing in this budget that does anything for them. There is no prescription drug benefit for seniors. The expectation of the cost is $750 billion. This budget does not even make

a down payment on that.

Many States like Texas have trouble funding its SCHIP program which provides health care for children. There is nothing in this budget that allows the $3 billion for our States to have insurance for our children. To cap this off, the government is backing deficit spending for 3 years, and for the next 10 with Medicare and Social Security, as Members can see from this chart.

1:51 PM EST

Mark Steven Kirk, R-IL 10th

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this budget. We have led on our side. We have a plan to protect Social Security. We have a plan to prosecute the war and provide for tax relief for Americans.

The other side's leadership has ordered them not to produce a budget. The gentleman from South Carolina is a very fine Member of Congress who would have been able to put together a good alternative had he been allowed to. But instead, there is no plan on the other side. When we look at the options, the options are to raise taxes, cut defense spending, go further into debt. We have no leadership on the other side. Thank goodness our majority has led on this topic.

1:55 PM EST

John M Spratt Jr., D-SC 5th

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. KIRK) invoked my name, and let me assure the gentleman, I am a free agent. I am comfortable with the decision that our caucus has made and our leadership has made. Frankly, we tried to produce a budget resolution, and we found to have a competing resolution on the floor and an apples-to-apples comparison, we would have to use the gimmicks and the devices the other side used to get the results they achieve. We did not want to do

that for a couple of reasons, not the least of which we did not want to go to 5 years. We think a 10-year budget is proper. We did not want to use OMB, as complacent as they can be sometimes in helping Members get the bottom line that they want. We wanted to stick with the Congressional Budget Office, the neutral and nonpartisan group.

Mr. Speaker, for these and many other reasons, we decided not to do a budget resolution; but there will be a Democratic resolution. It will be presented in the other body by Senator Conrad.

2:00 PM EST

Rush Holt, D-NJ 12th

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, if there is anything bipartisan about this budget resolution, it is probably our mutual displeasure with it. I do not think anyone is satisfied with this budget. And even if my colleagues on the other side accept the bottom line, that this budget resolution will run a real deficit and then continue to spend Social Security and Medicare dollars to pay for general government for years to come, I would say this year's partisan budget process does not permit a single substantive amendment,

not in the Budget Committee, not in the Rules Committee, not on the House floor.

I mention only one. Yesterday, I asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment that would have made improvements to this budget, specifically to increase our investment in research and development. It was not allowed. This budget resolution does provide increased funding for the National Institutes of Health, but it does not provide enough funding for general scientific research and development through the National Science Foundation and other agencies. The NSF, the National Science

Foundation, provides the backbone for the science and the scientists that are necessary to ensure that this Nation remains a leader. In other words, if the NIH investment is going to pay off, we need to make an investment in the other areas of science research and development.

2:02 PM EST

Charles W. Stenholm, D-TX 17th

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I take to the floor in the strongest possible opposition to this unfair rule. I cannot believe my colleagues on this side that can stand up and say, ``Support this fair rule.''

But the first thing I want to say today is let the record clearly state, and I could not agree more, that Congress must join the President to provide for the security of our Nation, our troops, our law enforcement officials, and everyone else who is fighting the war on terrorism. We agree. However, it is cowardly, not patriotic, to use this vitally important priority for all of us as a scapegoat for abandoning all fiscal responsibility and the budget process in the pursuit of this unfair rule.

As a member of the minority, I do not expect I am going to win very often on the floor. But I do expect the majority to show a modicum of respect for the democratic process, if not for Democrats. To have every single Democratic amendment, both a complete substitute as well as numerous single bullet amendments, completely shut out of the debate is outrageous. What really bothers me about this, I remember the times in the last 23 years in which I have stood up with you on this side of the aisle

when you were in the minority and demanded that you have an opportunity to have your amendments on the floor and debated and usually I was with you.

But yesterday the Rules Committee said ``no'' to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. MOORE), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. TANNER), and myself when under the rules that you sent to us, we brought you a complete substitute and you said, ``No, we do not wish to allow you to have 1 hour of debate on a substitute.'' We offered the good hand of friendship to you and you said ``no.'' That is your privilege. That is your privilege. You can do so. But it is not just a few Blue Dogs or the

Democrats who have a problem. The majority seems determined to ignore it, but they have the same problem that needs to be solved and that is a deficit.

2:05 PM EST

Charles W. Stenholm, D-TX 17th

Mr. STENHOLM. I take back my time from the chairman and say that these are the rules of the House. The Rules Committee said to all people who brought a rule, ``Bring a budget that is scored by CBO.'' We did. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. NUSSLE) did not bring a budget to the Committee on Rules scored by CBO. You ignored your own rules in allowing the gentleman from Iowa to come forward with an OMB-scored when your rules and what you instructed me to do is come CBO-scored. You chose to ignore

it, which you can do. You can waive any rule any time you want to in the majority. But let me remind the gentleman that the chickens will come home to roost.

You are going to have to vote to borrow $750 billion, and it is going to be more than that with the economic game plan you folks are on. You are going to get to stand up and provide 218 votes to increase the debt ceiling when we could have been with you and we offered to be with you in a bipartisan way to the President saying, We do not have to resort to games; we can do it under the rules of the House and we can do it bipartisanly. But no thanks, you did not want any part of that.

There is justice in this world, and you are going to get a chance pretty soon to borrow that money in an up and down vote and explain why you are doing it when you could have had something better.

2:07 PM EST

Don Young, R-AK

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. First of all, I would like to commend Chairman NUSSLE of the Committee on the Budget for bringing this resolution to the floor. I am very pleased with the cooperative working relationship that has developed between our two committees.

As you know, the President's budget proposes an $8.6 billion, or 27 percent, reduction in highway funding, from $31.8 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $23.2 billion in fiscal year 2003. Most of this proposed decrease in funding is based on the revenue-aligned budget authority provision of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, otherwise known as TEA-21, which I continue to support in principle. However, it is simply too harmful to our State transportation budgets and our economy to

allow such a dramatic funding cut to take place next year. Therefore, my goal has been to restore the highway program to a reasonable, sustainable funding level of at least $27.7 billion, which is the funding level envisioned by fiscal year 2003 in TEA-21. Any language to the contrary in the report accompanying H. Con. Res. 353 does not accurately reflect my views on this subject.

My position on this issue is made clear in H.R. 3694, the Highway Funding Restoration Act. H.R. 3694 calls for highway funding of not less than $27.7 billion in fiscal year 2003. The words ``not less than'' are profoundly important to me and the 315 cosponsors of the legislation. This is a fluid process, and I reserve the right of my committee to move this bill or some version of it in the future if necessary. If it becomes clear to me that the highway trust fund can sustain a higher funding

level and at that time there is significant support for restoring more than $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2003, then I will actively support a further increase in highway funding. The budget resolution adds $4.4 billion for highways and highway safety,

thereby increasing funding for the highway program to $27.7 billion. This is a significant improvement over the President's budget. For that and other reasons, I support the resolution and urge my colleagues, on my committee especially, to do likewise.

I would like to clarify my views with the gentleman from Iowa and ask if there is anything in H. Con. Res. 353 that would preclude adding more than $4.4 billion to the highway program at some point in the future.

2:09 PM EST

Jim Nussle, R-IA 2nd

Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and also for the cooperation between our committees. I agree with the gentleman from Alaska that there is nothing in this resolution that would preclude adding more than $4.4 billion to the highway program under certain circumstances. For instance, such a further increase could be possible if conference negotiations with the Senate result in a higher funding level for highways or if the Appropriations Committee, as an example,

would allocate additional outlays to its transportation subcommittee by reducing outlays in some other function.

I understand the gentleman will continue to work with the Budget Committee to help modify the caps, including those for highways and transit to, among other things, accommodate the additional transportation spending and to smooth out the year-to-year fluctuations in the revenue adjustments made under the RABA provision of TEA-21. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this.

2:10 PM EST

Don Young, R-AK

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I will [Page: H1027]

work with him as I have told him before not only on the floor but in private to provide both the general purpose and transportation caps to, among other things, reflect the increase in highway spending. I want to thank the gentleman again for his good work.

2:10 PM EST

Jim Moran, D-VA 8th

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, all of us have to vote against this rule, because all of us have voted to do so. Unless you were just elected in the past year, every single one of us have voted to protect Social Security and Medicare if at all possible. I offered the most reasonable amendment you could imagine, a trigger amendment. All it said was that we will give you a pass this year but beginning next year, if the Congressional Budget Office tells us that we are operating at a deficit,

that we will have to dip into Social Security trust funds, then the Budget Committee has to produce a path, a budget plan over 5 years to bring us back into balance without using Social Security. That is all it does. If you vote against the rule, you are saying that you are letting off the Budget Committee from coming up with a 5-year plan that is not based upon raiding Social Security trust funds. And this budget does do that. That is the problem with this budget.

There is a $224 billion deficit in this year's budget that is paid for by Social Security Trust Funds. Over the next 5 years, $830 billion comes out of the Social Security trust funds. Over the next 10 years, $1.6 trillion is going to come from Social Security trust funds. All we are saying is that as of next year, if you find that we are still operating at a deficit, give us a plan, a 5-year plan that will enable us to be good to our word, because five times we have voted for the lock box. Five

times. 228 Republicans have voted for the lock box, saying we are not going to use Social Security to balance the budget. Yet here we are today, about to do exactly what we promised never to do.

If you vote for the rule, you are rejecting an amendment that simply said give us a 5-year plan to get out of the reliance upon Social Security trust funds. Let us balance this budget with general funds revenue, not take it from the trust funds, not put the burden on our children to have to come up with our retirement and our Medicare health funds. That is all we are asking for, to be good to our word. We are on record. We gave allowances if we are at a time of war. Or in a weak economy, it does

not apply. But all things being equal, the Budget Committee has a responsibility to bring us to balance over 5 years without depending upon the trust funds. And if for no other reason, you need to support that and vote against this rule.

2:15 PM EST

Bill Young, R-FL 10th

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. In the course of my review of the budget resolution before us today, I see no provision that establishes discretionary caps in fiscal year 2003 or extends the highway and transit guarantees beyond 2003. Is that accurate?

2:15 PM EST

Jim Nussle, R-IA 2nd

Mr. NUSSLE. That is also accurate. As a concurrent resolution, the budget before us today does not establish discretionary caps or continue the highway or transit firewalls beyond fiscal year 2003.

2:15 PM EST

Bill Young, R-FL 10th

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Would the chairman also agree that discussions on establishing discretionary caps in fiscal year 2003 and beyond and extending the highway and transit firewalls beyond the current fiscal year should include the Committee on Appropriations?

2:16 PM EST

Jim Nussle, R-IA 2nd

Mr. NUSSLE. I most definitely agree with that. The Committee on the Budget has exclusive jurisdiction over the Budget Enforcement Act, but the chairman and I, I think, have established a good working relationship, and I will continue to consult with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

2:16 PM EST

Bill Young, R-FL 10th

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as you have just said, you and I have established great communications. We have had numerous discussions about the need of the Committee on Appropriations to be able to determine the appropriate balance of competing needs and priorities within the discretionary segment of the budget. The needs are great for the prosecution of the war against terrorism, homeland security and other critically important Federal programs. We both recognize that the cuts anticipated

in the highway program are too great to be sustained this year, though these reductions in the highway program are required by provisions of existing law in TEA21 in which expenditures must equal receipts. Those provisions were supported by a majority of the House and had the full backing of the highway lobby at the time. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of support to increase spending for highways beyond the collections of the trust fund this year.

By contrast, the resources to fund all these unmet needs are limited. That is why the gentleman from Wisconsin and I introduced legislation that would ensure that any increase for the highway program not come at the expense of other Federal programs. H.R. 3900 adjusts the highway category. It ensures that additional spending is guaranteed for highways in fiscal year 2003.

H.R. 3900 has been referred to your committee. Is your committee expected to report favorably this legislation to ensure that the highway firewalls are increased above the $23.864 billion this year?

2:17 PM EST

Jim Nussle, R-IA 2nd

Mr. NUSSLE. It is my expectation that my committee will be reporting legislation to ensure that the highway category is increased.

2:17 PM EST

Bill Young, R-FL 10th

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commitments of the gentleman from Iowa and the clarity that he has provided to me and to the House today. I would like to add that his job is not the easiest job in the Congress. It is a difficult job to bring all of the divergent views together. I applaud the gentleman for the good job he has done. He can count on my vote for this resolution.

2:18 PM EST

Richard A. Gephardt, D-MO 3rd

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this rule. The rule is unfair. It does not allow an adequate debate on the most important issue we will decide on the floor of this House this year. It is a travesty that we have 3 hours to talk about the most important set of decisions we will make perhaps in a generation. [Page: H1028]

We should be talking about a different budget today. The budget should be based on values, on opportunity, responsibility and community. But this Republican budget, which is the only thing we are able to consider today, fails on all counts.

It is not honest. It shows deficits as far as the eye can see, in large part because of the Republican economic program that we passed about 9 months ago.

First of all, we have squandered the surplus, squandered the surplus, $4.5 trillion, gone in the flash of an eye. Gone. $4.5 trillion, gone in the flash of an eye. Twelve months ago we had it; now it is gone. Of course, the loss of that surplus means that we cannot fulfill our promise to the lockbox. Five times in this House 220-plus Members of the Republican Party voted solidly for the lockbox. By voting today for this budget, they are breaking into the lockbox. We are not keeping our word.

Let us look at the words. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) declared the House of Representatives is not going to go back to raiding the lockbox. He said, ``Not a dime's worth of Social Security or Medicare money will be spent on anything other than Social Security and Medicare.''

The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chair of the committee, said, ``This Congress will protect 100 percent of Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Period. No speculation. No supposition. No projections.''

These are words that mean something. They are being broken.

The Speaker of the House in the same month said, ``Since I have been Speaker, we have not spent a penny of the Social Security Trust Fund, and,'' he said, ``we don't intend to.''

Promises are being broken. The contract is being broken. The word, our collective word, is being broken by what we are trying to do here today with this budget.

$1.8 trillion will be spent from Social Security in the next 10 years with this budget. We do not even have time to talk about it, to debate it, to worry about it. We said a number of years ago, let us put Social Security first. This budget puts Social Security last. We are in essence taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund and we are spending it on everything else. It is last. That is not what we said to the American people.

Then there is prescription drugs. Oh, we all ran ads on prescription drugs. Oh, we are going to take care of prescription drugs.

Where are the prescription drugs in this bill? The program that is described in this Republican budget is paltry. It does not affect most of the senior citizens who thought they were going to get something out of this program, because, once again, I guess it is prescription drugs last in Medicare. We are going to put it behind everything else.

Let me just finally say this: I guess my greatest worry is that we are doing this without anybody in the country much knowing about it. How many people in the country actually know what happened to Social Security in this budget? It is 3 hours, I fear, because we do not want them to know what is happening to their Social Security.

This bill has real live consequences for people, millions of people all over this country. Let me just tell you my story as kind of a symbol or an analogy of what is happening to lots of other people.

My mother called me a week ago and she said, ``I bounced some checks.'' She is 94-years-old and she still keeps her own checkbook. She lives in independent living in St. Louis. She said, ``I bounced some checks. It is the first time I have ever done it in my life. Please, when you come home next, sit down with me. We have to figure this out.''

So I sat down with her and we went over all of her checks. She lives in independent living. The cost is $2,500 a month. She has got a prescription drug bill of about $600 over that. So her monthly outgo before she gets to spending money is about $3,100 a month. Her Social Security is $1,200 a month. My brother and I, we are lucky. We are fine and we can help her with the difference.

But as we were going over her checks, she kept saying to me, ``Dick, what if the Social Security check were to stop coming? How would we do this?'' She even suggested to me, ``Maybe I ought to move out of this place because we cannot afford it,'' because her prescription drug bill has been going up every month.

She is 94. She and millions like her and their families should not have to be worrying about all this. What if she were in a family that did not have people like my brother and me who could help her? We are fortunate. What if she did not have that money coming in to take care of her prescription drugs, to pay her monthly bills?

This budget has real live consequences for the people that we represent. Are we going to privatize Social Security? Are we going to cut the benefits? Because that is the logical conclusion of this budget. The President has said he wants to privatize it, which means you have got to come up with a lot of money that is not in this budget. The only way you are going to get it is to cut the benefits. Is that what we are saying to the American people today? I hope it is not.

This is the most important budget that you will vote on probably in your time in this Congress. A year ago we had surpluses; today we are breaking the lockbox. A year ago we had taken care of Social Security first; this budget puts Social Security last. A year ago we had the money for prescription drugs; today we are not going to have a decent prescription drug program.

It is a travesty that we have 3 hours to talk about the most important fiscal decisions that will have consequences in everybody's life in this country.

I urge Members to vote no on a ridiculous rule and vote no if we have to vote on this budget today. Let us get to a summit. Let us get to a discussion. Let us get to a family discussion with the President. Let us work out a budget for America that is a real compromise, that will keep the word and the promise of the United States Congress to the people of this country.

2:29 PM EST

Louise Slaughter, D-NY 28th

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, we will be calling a vote on it. I will offer an amendment to this unfair and undemocratic closed rule.

Democrats are seeking to make in order two amendments to the budget resolution. The first is a trigger amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the second is the Moore-Stenholm-Tanner-Matheson substitute that the majority [Page: H1029]

on the Committee on Rules refused to make in order.

The Moran trigger amendment prohibits the Congress from adopting any budget resolution next year if it does not project a surplus within 5 years. Democrats have offered a vehicle in this trigger amendment that can force the institution to face up to the facts.

The majority has spent some time today complaining that no substitutes were offered in the Committee on Rules. I beg to differ. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), offered a substitute that establishes a budget plan for fiscal discipline. Yet, the Committee on Rules failed to make it in order. Our amendment to the rule

would correct this serious failing.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, the President and every House Republican leader promised that every dollar of Social Security and Medicare trust funds would be saved for Social Security and Medicare. With this budget, that promise has been broken.

We want to give the majority one last chance to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker. By defeating the previous question, we can restore honesty to the budget process and protect Social Security.

The time for games has ended. Let us pass an honest budget, or at least a trigger amendment that protects Social Security. It is the right thing to do, and every Member knows it.

I urge a no vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

2:31 PM EST

Darlene Hooley, D-OR 5th

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, we will not find a Member on this side of the aisle who is not 100 percent supportive of winning this war against terrorism and bolstering our homeland security. However, we cannot forget our domestic priorities. Over the next 5 years, we will cut over $96 billion below what it costs to maintain these programs at their current level.

For the next few minutes what I would like to do is put a human face on some of these funding cuts, and maybe people watching this debate back home will have a better understanding of what this budget does. For example, everybody knows that health care costs are skyrocketing on an annual basis. As a result, 40 million Americans cannot afford health insurance. That includes 9 million children. This budget pretends that these people do not exist.

Compounding that situation is the fact that there are some programs that provide some minimal health care. For example, the rural health care program, it is cut by 41 percent. Telehealth programs are cut by 84 percent. Another problem is the freezing of funding for the Healthy Start program. It is for expectant mothers for prenatal care. I cannot think of any Member here who thinks that depriving mothers of prenatal care is something that we should be doing.

Then there is the matter of our homeland security. The people on the front line are police officers. Yet this budget completely eliminates, not cuts, eliminates the Department of Justice local law enforcement block grant, which is designed to put more cops on our streets. As a result, hundreds of communities across the United States, large and small, will see less cops on the street, meaning we can expect an increase in crime because this budget, as I just stated, eliminates this program.

[Time: 17:30]

Then there are our public schools. Every State is having problems with revenues and high enrollments. Just a little over 2 months ago, we had the No Child Left Behind Act signed into law. Most people voted for it. If Members will recall, President Bush made this a pillar of his State of the Union address and rightly so, ensuring that every child has a right to a first-rate education. So what happened to this program? You can see that is what is authorized, that is what we enacted last year, and

this is what we are proposing, a $100 million cut just from last year.

As a former teacher, I have also talked to educators in Oregon. One of the things they begged me not to do was pass another Federal program and another Federal mandate without the funds. We are not giving them the funds. Then there is special education. [Page: H1054]

We are funding that at 18 percent. What did the Federal Government promise to do? Twenty-seven years ago we said we would fund it at 40 percent. Are we doing that? No.

We are now starting down the same path with the No Child Left Behind Act. Again we make a promise we are not going to keep.

Mr. Chairman, to talk further about education, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. HONDA), a former teacher and principal.

2:31 PM EST

David Dreier, R-CA 28th

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate, and I guess have participated in it briefly with my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM).

I have to say that I am reminded, as I have heard the exchange take place over the last hour or so, of the words of a very famous former Democratic President who was known for his colorful but poignant words when Harry Truman said, ``Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.''

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a beautifully crafted budget which has come forward from the hard work of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. NUSSLE) and the members of the Committee on the Budget working to address a challenge the likes of which the United States of America has never faced, this war on terrorism, while at the same time focusing on the important need to make sure that we have the resources to win the war on terrorism and to address a wide range of other priority needs which

have come forward: transportation, which the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. YOUNG) addressed; national security issues; and education issues.

That is why it is so important that we focus on stimulating our economy and making sure that we grow this economy so that we have the resources necessary. Why is it that we have seen this slowdown? Because of September 11 and the slowing economy that followed. And what we have done is we have seen time and energy put into place to craft, like carpenters, this beautiful plan which I believe does deserve bipartisan support because we are all together in our quest to win the war on terrorism, and

the way to do it is to make sure that we have the resources necessary and a budget in place that will do that.

What is it that we have gotten from our friends on the other side of the aisle? Absolutely nothing. My friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. SLAUGHTER) just talked about the fact that we had substitutes submitted. There were no substitutes submitted.

Mr. Speaker, every single time we have made in order substitutes that have come from the Blue Dogs, from the Progressive Caucus, from the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and yet, we saw the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget tell us that 96 pages, 96 pages, Mr. Speaker, were put into a package which simply criticized the package that came forward from the Committee on the Budget, and in fact, there was no alternative provided whatsoever.

Vote in favor of this rule and in favor of this very fair, responsible budget.

The amendment previously referred to by Ms. SLAUGHTER is as follows:

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved in to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration resolution (H. Con. Res. 353) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2003 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007. The first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed

with. All points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. General debate shall not exceed three hours, with two hours of general debate confined to the congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by Representative Saxton of New Jersey and Representative Stark of California or their designees. After general debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The concurrent resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. No further amendment to the concurrent resolution shall be in order except those specified in section 2 of this resolution. Each further amendment may be offered only in the order specified in section

2, may be offered by a Member designated in section 2 or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable as specified in section 2, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments specified in section 2 are waived. After the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and

report the concurrent resolution, as amended, to the House with such further amendment as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to final adoption without intervening motion except amendments

offered by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division on the question of its adoption.

Sec. 2. The further amendments referred in the first section of this resolution are as follows:

(a) By Representative Moran of Virginia, debatable for 30 minutes.

After section 303, insert the following new section:

SEC. 304. CIRCUIT BREAKER FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Effective January 1, 2003, if the Congressional Budget Office's January Budget and Economic Outlook for any fiscal year projects an on-budget deficit (excluding social security) for the budget year or any subsequent fiscal year covered by those projections, then the concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget year shall reduce on-budget deficits relative to CBO's projections and put the budget on a path to achieve balance within 5 years, and shall include such

provisions as are necessary to facilitate deficit reduction.

(b) POINTS OF ORDER.--(1) In any fiscal year in which the Congressional Budget Office's January Budget and Economic Outlook for any fiscal year projects an on-budget deficit for the budget year or any subsequent fiscal year covered by those projections, it shall not be in order in the House or the Senate to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget year or any conference report thereon that fails to reduce on-budget deficits relative to CBO's projections and put the

budget on a path to achieve balance within 5 years.

(2) In any fiscal year in which the Congressional Budget Office's January Budget and Economic Outlook for any fiscal year projects an on-budget deficit for the budget year or any subsequent fiscal year covered by those projections, it shall not be in order in the House or the Senate to consider an amendment to a concurrent resolution on the budget that would increase on-budget deficits relative to the concurrent resolution on the budget in any fiscal year or cause the budget to fail to achieve

balance within 5 years. [Page: H1030]

(c) SUSPENSION OF REQUIREMENT DURING WAR OR LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH.--This section is suspended if--

(1) the most recent of the Department of Commerce's advance, preliminary, or final reports of actual real economic growth indicate that the rate of real economic growth (as measured by real GDP) for each of the most recently reported quarter and the immediately preceding quarter is less than 1 percent; or

(2) a declaration of war is in effect.--

(b) By Representative Moore of Kansas, debatable for one hour

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003.

The Congress declares that this is the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003 and that the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2004 through 2007 are hereby set forth.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007:

(1) FEDERAL REVENUES.--For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution:

(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as follows:

Fiscal year 2003: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007: $__XXXXXX.

(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be reduced are as follows:

Fiscal year 2003: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007: $__XXXXXX.

(2) NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY.--For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as follows:

Fiscal year 2003: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007: $__XXXXXX.

(3) BUDGET OUTLAYS.--For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as follows:

Fiscal year 2003: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007: $__XXXXXX.

(4) SURPLUSES.--For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the surpluses are as follows:

Fiscal year 2003: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007: $__XXXXXX.

(5) PUBLIC DEBT.--The appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows:

Fiscal year 2003: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007: $__XXXXXX.

(6) DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC.--The appropriate levels of debt held by the public are as follows:

Fiscal year 2003: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006: $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007: $__XXXXXX.

SEC. 102. HOMELAND SECURITY.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2003 for Homeland Security are as follows:

(1) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(2) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 for each major functional category are:

(1) National Defense (050):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(2) International Affairs (150):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(4) Energy (270):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(6) Agriculture (350):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(8) Transportation (400):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX. [Page: H1031]

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(9) Community and Regional Development (450):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(11) Health (550):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(12) Medicare (570):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(13) Income Security (600):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(14) Social Security (650):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(16) Administration of Justice (750):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(17) General Government (800):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(18) Net Interest (900):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(19) Allowances (920):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):

Fiscal year 2003:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2004:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2005:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2006:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX.

Fiscal year 2007:

(A) New budget authority, $__XXXXXX.

(B) Outlays, $__XXXXXX. [Page: H1032]

TITLE II--RESTORING FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY

SEC. 201. REVIEW OF BUDGET OUTLOOK.

(a) IN GENERAL.--If, in the report released pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, entitled the Budget and Economic Outlook Update (for fiscal years 2003 through 2012), the Director of the Congressional Budget Office projects that the unified budget of the United States for fiscal year 2003 will be in balance and that the budget (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability

Insurance Trust Fund) will be in balance by fiscal year 2007, then the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House is authorized to certify that the budget is projected to meet the goals of a balanced budget and protecting social security.

(b) CALCULATING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING BASELINE.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall use the discretionary spending levels set forth in this resolution to calculate the discretionary spending baseline. In calculating the report referred to in subsection (a), such Director shall exclude the emergency appropriations provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks

on the United States (Public Law 107-38) in calculating the baseline for discretionary spending.

SEC. 202. REQUIREMENT FOR PRESIDENTIAL PLAN TO RESTORE BALANCED BUDGET AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.

(a) REQUEST IF UNIFIED DEFICIT PROJECTED.--If the report of the Congressional Budget Office referred to in section 202 projects a unified deficit in fiscal year 2003, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House shall request that the President--

(1) submit to the House a proposal to bring the unified budget of the United States into balance by fiscal year 2003 and the budget (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) into balance by fiscal year 2007, or

(2) submit to the House a request that the unified budget of the United States for fiscal year 2003 be in deficit by [INSERT SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT] if the President certifies that such deficit amount is related to the costs of war or recession.

(b) REQUEST IF DEFICIT PROJECTED FOR BUDGET EXCLUDING OASDI.--If the report of the Congressional Budget Office referred to in section 202 projects the budget (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) will be in deficit in fiscal year 2007, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House shall request that the President submit to the House a proposal to bring the unified

budget of the United States into balance by fiscal year 2003 and the budget (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) into balance by fiscal year 2007.

(c) TEXT OF PROPOSAL.--The proposal shall include--

(1) specific legislative changes to reduce outlays, increase revenues, or both; and

(2) the text of a special resolution implementing the President's recommendations through reconciliation directives instructing the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and Senate to determine and recommend changes in laws within their jurisdictions to reduce outlays or increase revenues by specified amounts;

sufficient to meet the balanced budget goals described in section 201.

(d) INTRODUCTION OF PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL.--Within 5 legislative days after receipt of the proposal referred to in subsection (a), the majority leader of the House shall introduce legislation to carry out such proposal.

SEC. 203. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION REQUIRED IF BALANCED BUDGET AND SOCIAL SECURITY PROTECTION GOALS ARE NOT BEING MET.

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR LEGISLATION RESTORING BALANCED BUDGET AND PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.--Whenever the President submits a plan to restore balanced budgets and restore the social security surplus under section 202, the Committee on the Budget of the House shall report, not later than September 15, a revised concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003 with instructions to committees to achieve reductions in outlays or increases in revenues, or both, sufficient to

meet the balanced budget goals in section 201, and appropriately revised section 302(a) allocations to the Committee on Appropriations.

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATE VOTE TO ALLOW FOR A UNIFIED DEFICIT IN FISCAL YEAR 2003.--If the resolution reported by the Committee on the Budget of the House proposes to eliminate less than all of the projected unified deficit in fiscal year 2003, then that committee shall report a separate resolution waiving the balanced budget goal for fiscal year 2003 and authorizing a deficit of a specific amount with a finding that the deficit is a result of economic rescission or costs related to

the war on terrorism.

(c) PROCEDURE IF HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE FAILS TO REPORT REQUIRED RESOLUTION.--

(1) AUTOMATIC DISCHARGE OF HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE.--If the Committee on the Budget fails to report the resolution required by subsection (a), then the legislation introduced pursuant to section 202 (legislation implementing the President's plan) shall be automatically discharged from consideration by the committee or committees to which it was referred and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.

(2) CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE.--Ten days after the applicable committee or committees have been discharged under paragraph (1), any Member may move that the House proceed to consider the resolution. Such motion shall be highly privileged and not debatable.

(d) APPLICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.--To the extent that they are relevant and not inconsistent with this title, the provisions of title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall apply in the House of Representatives and the Senate to resolutions and legislation under this title and reconciliation legislation reported pursuant to directives included in those resolutions.

SEC. 204. INCREASE IN DEBT LIMIT CONTINGENT UPON PLAN TO RESTORE BALANCED BUDGET AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY.

(a) TEMPORARY INCREASE IN STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT.--The Committee on Ways and Means of the House shall report a bill as soon as practicable, but not later than March 25, 2002, that consists solely of changes in laws within its jurisdiction to increase the statutory debt limit sufficient to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to meet the obligation of the Government through, but not later than, September 30, 2002.

(b) POINT OF ORDER.--(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), it shall not be in order in the House to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that increases the limit on the public debt beyond September 30, 2002.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the House if--

(A) the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House has made the certification described in section 201 that the budget (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) will be in balance by fiscal year 2007; or

(B) the President has submitted a plan meeting the requirements of section 202 and the House has voted on a resolution meeting the requirements of section 203.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CERTAIN LEGISLATION REDUCING THE SURPLUS OR INCREASING THE DEFICIT AFTER FISCAL YEAR 2007.

(a) POINT OF ORDER.--It shall not be in order in the House to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that first provides new budget authority or a decrease in revenues for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2007 that would decrease the surplus or increase the deficit for any fiscal year.

(b) EXCEPTION.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House certifies, based on estimates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, that Congress has enacted legislation restoring 75-year solvency of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Disability Insurance Trust Fund and legislation extending the solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for 20 years.

SEC. 302. CRITICAL DEFENSE NEEDS.

This resolution includes $10 billion in new budget authority requested by the President for fiscal year 2003 within functional category 050, and a corresponding level of outlays that flow from this budget authority, without specified purpose. Therefore, this $10 billion in new budget authority shall be available for critical defense requirements, including additional pay raises for military personnel, military construction, readiness, naval shipbuilding, and other procurement requirements not

originally included in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2003.

SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided by subsection (b), in the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means or the Committee on Energy and Commerce reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides a prescription drug benefit, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the appropriate committee allocations for such committees and other appropriate levels in this resolution by the amount provided

by that measure for that purpose.

(b) FUNDS AVAILABLE CONTINGENT UPON BALANCED BUDGET AND PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.--The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may only make revisions under subsection (a) if--

(1) the chairman has made the certification described in section 201 that the unified budget is projected to be in balance in fiscal year 2003 and that the budget (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) will be in balance by fiscal year 2007; or

(2) the President has submitted a plan meeting the requirements of section 202 and [Page: H1033]

the House has voted on a resolution meet the requirements of section 203.

SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided by subsection (b), in the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means or the Committee on Energy and Commerce reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides for reductions in revenues of not more than $4,431,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and $27,853,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2008, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives

may reduce the recommended level of Federal revenues and make other appropriate adjustments for that fiscal year.

(b) FUNDS AVAILABLE CONTINGENT UPON BALANCED BUDGET AND PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY.--The chairman of the Committee on the Budget may only make revisions under subsection (a) if--

(1) the chairman has made the certification described in section 201 that the unified budget is projected to be in balance in fiscal year 2003 and that the budget (excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund) will be in balance by fiscal year 2007; or

(2) the President has submitted a plan meeting the requirements of section 202 and the House has voted on a resolution meet the requirements of section 203.

SEC. 305. RESERVE FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL FOR MILITARY ACTION AND HOMELAND SECURITY.

If the Committee on Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution providing appropriations requested by the President for military action and homeland security, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides new budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) for that purpose and if the request by the President is accompanied by a list of rescissions to offset some or all of its costs, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make

the appropriate revisions to the appropriate aggregates, allocations, and other levels in this resolution by the amount provided by that measure for that purpose, but the total adjustment under this section shall not exceed the amount so requested by the President.

SEC. 306. RESERVE FUND FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION.

(a) FISCAL YEAR 2003.--In the House, if the Committee on Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides in excess of $7,529,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2003 for grants to States authorized under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the appropriate allocations for such committee and other

appropriate levels in this resolution by the amount provided by that measure for that purpose, but not to exceed $1,000,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2003 and outlays flowing therefrom.

(b) FISCAL YEARS 2004-2007.--In the House, if the Committee on Education and the Workforce reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that reauthorizes grants to States under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the applicable allocations of the appropriate committees to accommodate a total budget authority and outlay level for

such program not in excess of the following: $9,587,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2004 and outlays flowing therefrom, $10,755,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2005 and outlays flowing therefrom, $12,047,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2006 and outlays flowing therefrom, and $13,497,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal

year 2007 and outlays flowing therefrom (assuming changes from current policy levels of the following: $1,752,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2004, $2,763,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2005, $3,894,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2006, and $5,180,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2007).

SEC. 307. RESERVE FUND FOR HIGHWAYS AND HIGHWAY SAFETY.

(a) IN GENERAL.--In the House, if the Committee on Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that establishes an obligation limitation in excess of $23,864,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 for programs, projects, and activities within the highway category (under section 251(c)(7)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may increase

the allocation of outlays for such committee by the amount of outlays resulting from such excess, but--

(1) only if chairman of the Committee on the Budget determines that the bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that establishes such obligation limitation provides that the obligation limitation is made available solely for programs, projects, or activities as distributed under section 1102 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century;

(2) only if the total amount of obligation limitation for programs, projects, or activities distributed by such formula for fiscal year 2003 exceeds $23,864,000,000; and

(3) does not exceed $1,180,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2003.

(b) RULE OF ENFORCEMENT.--In the House, section 302(f)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be deemed to also apply to the applicable allocation of outlays in the case of any bill or joint resolution that establishes an obligation limitation for fiscal year 2003 for programs within the highway category, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon.

SEC. 308. ADDITIONAL SURPLUSES RESERVED FOR DEBT REDUCTION.

In the House, if after the release of the report pursuant to section 202(e)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 entitled the Budget and Economic Outlook: Update (for fiscal years 2003 through 2012), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget determines, in consultation with the Directors of the Congressional Budget Office and of the Office of Management and Budget, that the estimated unified surplus for fiscal year 2003 and for the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007 exceeds the

estimated unified surplus for fiscal year 2003 and for that period as set forth in the report of the Committee on the Budget for this resolution, then the chairman of that committee may increase the surplus or reduce the deficit, as applicable, and reduce the level of the public debt and debt held by the public by the difference between such estimates for that period.

SEC. 309. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.

(a) APPLICATION.--Any adjustments of allocations and aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--

(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;

(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and

(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as practicable.

(b) EFFECT OF CHANGED ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.--Revised allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in this resolution.

(c) BUDGET COMMITTEE DETERMINATIONS.--For purposes of this resolution--

(1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget; and

(2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments to such levels to carry out this resolution.

SEC. 310. USE OF CBO ESTIMATES IN ENFORCING THIS RESOLUTION.

The chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House shall enforce this resolution based upon estimates made by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office using the economic and technical assumptions underlying the Congressional Budget Office's report released on March 6, 2002, entitled ``An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for 2003'', except as provided by title II.

SEC. 311. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGY.

(a) FINDINGS.--Congress finds that--

(1) effective homeland security requires the coordinated efforts of Federal, State, local, and private investment to prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attack;

(2) spending from each entity must proceed from a comprehensive strategy outlining threats, vulnerabilities, needs, and responsibilities for all aspects of homeland security strategy;

(3) there has been no comprehensive threat or vulnerability assessment to guide the homeland security budget;

(4) there has been no comprehensive national homeland security strategy to match priority needs with Federal spending; and

(5) in the absence of a national homeland security strategy, Congress will find it difficult to allocate funds according to the prioritization and required level of need.