Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from California to engage in that colloquy.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to engage my colleague from California, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, in a colloquy. The gentleman from California is certainly one of Congress' most steadfast supporters of American's servicemen and -women. I understand he has a concern related to military housing and the privatization program.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the very distinguished vice-chair of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to respond briefly and say that the gentleman from Maryland may want to read his substitute. It is interesting what you find out when you read the substitute. He said that it would be immoral to use one penny of the Social Security trust fund over the next 5 years. Well, guess what? Your substitute spends it all. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chance to come before the body to debate yet again the budget for this next fiscal year. Before I start with that debate, let me compliment my ranking member and friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), on the way that we have moved this budget through committee and moved it to the floor. The gentleman from South Carolina will be offering a substitute budget tomorrow as part of this debate. While people who are watching this are going to see us argue today, we are going to argue about priorities, we are going to argue about deficits, we are going to argue about taxes, we are going to argue about just about everything, it seems, but one thing we do not argue about is the importance of this process. Those who are watching may wonder why it is we are going to be spending 6 hours of general debate over the budget. Let me tell you why. If you have ever built a house with your wife or your husband and you had to go visit the architect, you will discover very quickly why it is important you have a blueprint that you can agree on before the carpenters show up or the plumber or the heating and air conditioning people or the roofer or anybody else, because if the blueprint does not work, if it does not fit, if there is not agreement on that basic foundation, the rest of the process is not going to work very well. The carpenters show up to do their work, they do not have a blueprint, and what you have on your hands is a mess. The reason that we have gone through this process since 1974, every year, is because we believe in the fundamental decision that is made as part of this budget for spending, for taxes, making so many decisions that flow from this process. We are going to have some good-natured debate today. Democrats will be arguing with Republicans and Republicans will be arguing back. But when it comes right down to it, we believe in our country, but we believe that we need a blueprint, we believe in this process and as I said to start with, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his partnership in working through the process even though we have not come to a bipartisan agreement. I would also like to thank our staff. When you are going from the beginning of the Federal budget and $2.4 trillion line items here and there, you have got to count on some good people. I want to thank them for the work they do in getting us to this point because, just like any good architect, they need the engineers behind them to make sure that the structure is sound. I want to thank our staff on both sides for the work that they do. Even before the end of last year, we kind of had an idea of what the must-do list would be in writing this year's budget. It was already becoming very clear that this budget has got to get spending under control, and it had to begin the work of reducing our deficit. I heard that message from every Member, from our President and from just about every constituent that I visited with back home in Iowa. It really did not matter where you went. People said, out in Washington, you're spending way too much money. Even worse than that, you're wasting a lot of money. It did not matter, almost regardless of the topic, regardless of the department, regardless of the program, people said you have to control spending. Even the administration was clearly hearing the exact same thing. As far back as last July, the President of the United States was proposing that cutting the deficit in half within the next 5 years would be one of the most important cornerstones of the budget that he presented to Congress this year. We all know and we take pause at a time like this to remember the extraordinary circumstances of the past few years. Our country has hardly ever seen the kind of difficulty that we have had to face during these past few years. We had a growth deficit in the economy that produced a slowdown, a recession, of 2000 and 2001. The economy was not growing. We had a growth deficit. We learned painfully, as well, that we had extensive deficits in our defense and our homeland security. We knew that we were not protected as well as we could be or should be as a Nation, and we made immediate plans to improve that. We also had a Medicare deficit. A 40-year program that our Nation's seniors had depended on had really failed to keep up with the times, and as a result, we had a deficit in the way that that program was providing help to seniors across the country, particularly with regard to prescription drugs. All of these were large and important problems and challenges, and I doubt that anyone on either side would have recommended that we ignore them. In fact, no one did. We all decided the economy was important. We all decided Medicare was important. We all decided that security and homeland security and national defense were important. But in addressing them, we took large initiatives and the result was a budget deficit. We made deliberate decisions that drove us to borrow money in order to meet these short-term challenges. Correcting that budget deficit and getting us back on a path to balance is our next major challenge, and it is one that this budget tackles. We had a growth deficit, a security deficit and a health care deficit that we have dealt with. Now we have to deal with the Federal budget deficit. At the same time, however, this was not a green-eye-shade exercise. It is not just a matter of getting a bunch of numbers to add up. The budget also has to support an agenda that reflects our principles of governing, which is to advance our Nation's strength, growth and opportunity. I will briefly review each of these principles and then turn it over to colleagues from my committee who will discuss these even further. First is strength. Our country has to be strong. America is free and will remain free as long as we are strong. We have got to be strong enough to defend that freedom. We have got to be strong enough to defend it here at home and we have got to be able to take that fight to the people who want to ruin that freedom wherever they may be. That is what we are doing around the world right now. America is free and will remain free as long as we are strong enough to defend freedom at home and around the world. Second is growth. To remain the world's most prosperous superpower nation, America's economy must continue to grow and create jobs. If the budget that is being debated around the kitchen tables of America today, right now as we speak, families are trying to balance their checkbook, they are trying to figure out how to make ends meet, send their kids to college, pay their bills on time, pay a Visa bill that seems to get bigger and larger all the time. If their budgets do not add up, it really does not matter what the rest of the country looks like. We are the sum of our parts and our parts have got to be strong. That is why growth in the economy is so vital. Finally, opportunity. Strength, growth and opportunity, the third one. America's continued greatness comes from what I believe are the unlimited opportunities that our American freedom provides all of us. We must continue to encourage opportunities for a better life for every citizen in our country. Those are the guiding principles of this budget. The fundamentals for furthering those principles with this year's budget include the following. Let me just outline a few of them. First is on taxes, and let me be very clear because this is one delineation between the parties and between all of the budgets that you are going to see today. This budget does not raise taxes, period. Our country does not need a tax increase today or tomorrow to meet the needs of our budget. Our tax relief policies are working, finally. We are starting to see some of these have their effect on the economy. The last 6 months of our economy were the fastest growing 6 months in 20 years. It has been 20 years since we have seen that kind of growth. Have the jobs been there? Not yet. They are coming, though, because that is the last indicator in economic development. It is what they call a lagging indicator. Economists call it lagging because it is one of the last things you see develop within the economic development, are the jobs being created. And at exactly the time when small businesses in Manchester, Iowa, or across Iowa or wherever you might be, at the very time when they are starting to think, you know, the economy's starting to turn around, it might be time to add on another product line or maybe to hire another waiter or waitress or two or maybe to figure out another sales clerk that could maybe fill in during some of the times so that somebody can be off a little bit more of the time. At the very moment when they are ready to think about adding jobs, we cannot have a snapback, automatic, come-from-behind, hit-them-in-the-back-of-the-head tax increase that says, oh, by the way, we need that money, you shouldn't be able to spend it back home. That to me does not make any sense. The tax relief packages are working and we will not allow a snapback of the tax, the 10 percent tax rate, the marriage penalty relief. We do not want to penalize married people in this country. And we also believe that the tax credit should remain at its current level. So that is taxes. The next is spending. We cannot begin to address reducing the current budget deficit without getting ahold of our current rate of spending growth. I am going to show the Members a chart because I think this illustrates the spending issue probably better than any others. I want to show the Members what we have been spending the last number of years. Did most of this go to necessary demands? Absolutely. I am not suggesting that the amount of money we have been spending in Washington has gone for naught. Of course it has been for many necessary demands. Can we suspend that rate of growth? I do not think we can suspend it, but we should not sustain that rate of growth over a long period of time. Let me just show the Members this chart because I think this is important. This is our recent spending history. In the last 3 years, total spending growth has averaged 6 percent. The growth in the economy has not been that strong. I mean, we have not seen that kind of inflation. Why is it that we ask families to only grow possibly at the rate of inflation if they are lucky to even get that kind of a pay increase, but we ask them for more money so that we can increase government spending? Some of this growth has been necessary, as I said. Homeland security, war on terrorism, education, veterans spending. A lot of good spending has been in here, but we need to start going through this with a fine tooth comb so that we can start holding the line on spending, not wasting it and respecting the taxpayers who, I believe, use it much more wisely oftentimes than we do. I have said many times before that everything in this budget should be on the table for consideration when it comes to controlling spending, and we have looked for ways to control spending throughout the entire budget. And we thought it was fair to start right here at home, right here in this House, by freezing our own congressional budgets. Before we look outside this Chamber and say to anyone else they have got to tighten their belt, it is time we do it right here first. And that is not only an issue of credibility, but it does save us some money. It does give us, I think, the standing to go to Departments and say they can live with just a little bit less, they can live with the amount that they had last year. We have also called for holding the line on all nondefense discretionary spending and called for a reduction of \1/2\ of 1 percent from the President's requested increase of 9.7 percent of homeland security. What we are basically saying is that the President deserves to be able to continue to manage homeland security in a positive way to keep us safe at home, but remember too that when we formed the new Homeland Security Department, it was advertised both by Congress as well as the Department of Homeland Security that eventually they could help us save money by coordinating those services, and we have pumped a lot of money into homeland security. But I cannot name one constituent who has come up to me and told me that they have had an experience in the airport where they thought all that money was being spent wisely. In fact, I get more letters and more conversations of people saying, You know what? I could tell you how the government could save some money. There is a lot of waste in the way that we manage this whole transportation security. Those are the things they see. There are many things that we do not see that we should constantly be looking at, and I know people will come down here saying we must not care about homeland security if we even want to look for any waste or any savings, and that is not fair. That is not fair because we should respect every dollar that is used in every Department for the intended purpose, but we should not waste one penny, and where we can even find a penny or a dollar or a hundred or even into the billions in some instances, we should work to do that. We also called for a program of savings and elimination based on rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in what we call our mandatory programs or entitlements. The reason we do that is because we have a lot of spending here in Congress and throughout the Federal Government that is automatic, that happens regardless of what we decide here today, unless we start to work to improve those programs and start rooting out waste within many of those programs. And there are so many examples. I mean, we work hard, and so does the bureaucracy of our government work hard to make sure that when we provide a benefit to somebody who needs help from the government, and so many of us believe that that is what government is for, to help people who cannot help themselves in many instances, every penny of that should make sure it gets to the people whom we intend to help, no one else. No one else should be taking advantage of those programs. States should not be allowed to just maneuver those moneys around like a shell game in order to make their budgets look good and then blame the Federal Government for not sending back the money. We have got to make sure that every penny is getting to the people it is intended to get to. Over all the confusion over what Chairman Allen Greenspan said last month to my committee concerning Social Security, there was a much bigger point that got lost, and that was the problem that he talked about in mandatory spending. Most entitlement spending is on auto pilot, and in other words, it just keeps growing year after year in most cases without ever undergoing oversight. And what we do in this budget is we ask people, we ask our committees of jurisdiction, to begin going into the garden and pulling out the weeds, the places where we can find savings and make sure it is plowed back in to helping people who cannot help themselves. Truly, just about the only time we look at these programs is like last year with Medicare when we wanted to expand it, and we did find savings within that program. We need to do this every year. This is a problem, and it is getting worse every year. In 1974, the year the Budget Act was adopted, mandatory spending accounted for only 41 percent of the total budget. This year, 30 years later, already over half of our spending is automatic that we cannot affect unless we change the law. So let me be clear. I am not saying that mandatory programs in and of themselves are bad. No one is saying that. Many of them provide critical services, but I am saying that we had better get ahold of the growing wave of entitlement spending that we have created over the years before it crashes down around all of us, all of us here in Congress as well as all the families across our Nation that we ask to pay for these programs. To continue with our games of political rhetoric with regard to these programs, I believe, is foolish. This is where I have got to give the little asterisks in attention for those who might be watching. This is where many people will run to the Chamber and say, oh, they are going to hurt the poor; oh, they are going to throw seniors out into the street; oh, they are going to kick a dog, or something like that. I mean, my goodness, that is not what we are talking about. We had a hearing here where, believe it or not, the Department of Agriculture was proud of the fact that they had a 9 percent error rate in the food stamp program. There is not a business in our country that could survive with an error rate of 9 percent. In fact, CEOs and small businessmen and -women across our country would scour their books for days to find 1 percent if they thought that was in their budgets. We allow 9 percent to go on and say, well, gosh, that is an improvement because the year before it was 18 percent. That is ridiculous. So we are not saying that we should go in and be indiscriminate. We want food stamps to go to people who are hungry. We do not want it to go in waste, fraud, and abuse to fund an underground economy where food stamps have been used as a currency. And that is wrong. We have got to get our arms around it. We are not suggesting it has to be done immediately today, but let us start the work. Let us not waste one penny that should go to people who are hungry around our country. We proved last year that there are huge amounts of indefensible waste, fraud, and abuse within our mandatory programs. So in this budget we have begun the process of actually reducing or eliminating some of those most outrageous examples of waste. Let me turn to spending control. We are calling for a few other spending controls or restraints, whatever the Members would like to call them, for Members of Congress. They are including, for instance, holding the line on our budget. We are calling for no increase in the legislative branch appropriations for Congress. We do not want any new entitlement spending until we go through the process of looking at our current entitlements and no nonwar emergency supplementals without spending offsets. From 1995 until about, I believe it was, 1998, we started a practice here that we should get back to and that is saying if we have an emergency come into our country, let us look to offset the costs of those emergencies by reducing or eliminating other lower priority items that can be put on the back burner for a period of time while we deal with that emergency. Obviously, that cannot happen in a war. That is obvious. I mean, when we are in a war, we are going to do what it takes. The President said that from right here at this podium, and just about every Member agrees with that as well; but we are talking about that with regard to nonwar. We are also asking that we stop the practice of waiving the Budget Act or waiving the rules for the budget. A lot of people will come down here beating their chest about the budget or how we ought to change the budget process, and then they will vote for or encourage the adoption of waivers for the budget throughout the rest of the year. That has to stop if we want to continue to enforce the budget. We should also freeze spending on programs that are unauthorized; and for the people who might be listening to this who are not familiar with this process, what Congress does is through some of our committees we determine that a program is needed and then we turn it over to the other side of the building where the appropriators sit, and we ask them to find the money to fund it. But oftentimes the appropriators are asked to fund programs that have never gone through the regular process. And so what we are saying here is if they have not gone through the regular order, if they not had their program authorized, they should be eligible to have their funding frozen for a period of time until we can make sure that their program is eligible, working correctly, not wasting any money, and continues to be a priority. There are too many things that have continued to receive funding throughout the years that have not been authorized. One of my favorite examples is that we actually only recently ended the practice of funding the National Helium Reserve. That was an unauthorized program from the time of the dirigibles during World War I when we actually came up with this program. It made sense then. I mean, they have got to make sure the blimps are flying. That was national security back in World War I. But because that program had never been authorized and the appropriators continued to fund it, it was only recently that we were able to dig through the books and find out it was still being funded, and we were able to eliminate that funding. Finally, with regard to war costs, the budget takes into account the funding for the ongoing war in Iraq. We know without question that there will be costs for the war while this budget that we are voting on today is in effect. Do we know the exact dollar amount? No. But we know it is not zero. And that was well said by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We support our troops. We want to make sure they know that money is going to be on the way. We want our partners to know that we are making this a priority, and we also want to know that it is included in the bottom line as part of getting to a balanced budget, respecting the need to identify all of our costs. So we had a choice. We could either sit here and wait for an emergency supplemental for the war, or we could do what I believe is the responsible thing, factor in those costs as we know them without question because we know that they are coming. So we have included $50 billion for funding the war in Iraq. It is a tough choice, certainly one that we would rather not face, I suppose; but one that we felt was the right thing to do and a budgeting priority. Finally, with regard to fiscal responsibility, we get results with this budget, and it is results that matter. Now, this is clearly not the budget that I would write ideally if it were left to my own choices. But we have to come up with a compromise. And what we have tried to do is we have tried to meld all of the different needs of all of the different Members of Congress as part of this. Taking the initiative to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, doing a little more with a little less, actually restraining spending is a whole lot tougher than just signing off on some huge spending increase. We all know that families, businesses, States, local governments have had to actually go into their budget and cut it. We are not even doing that. We are not saying we have to cut the budget. There may be some who claim that that is what it does, but we are not cutting the budget. We are just holding the line. There are some people who have actually had to make tougher choices than that. Do we have a list of wants that may go unfulfilled for a while? Sure. We are just asking them to go on the back burner. We have to follow suit if we are going to get back on the right track. So we are just asking to hold the line. If we can do that, if we adhere to those principles, this is what we expect to gain: First, not to increase the deficit in the current year, which I believe is a reasonable goal; Second, to cut the deficit in half as early as 4 years by both the factor of our economy as well as actual dollars; Third, we get the ball rolling toward an effort of reigniting our oversight responsibilities to root out massive amounts of wasteful spending here in Washington; Finally, we win the war, we balance the budget, and we can double the economy if we follow this kind of blueprint. I think that is a huge payoff for just a little bit of fiscal responsibility and restraint in this year. I think it is the least we can do. This is a good budget. It is a good blueprint. It has come together over a lot of difficult conversations, because if you went to visit your architect to build a home, that would be a difficult conversation, too. They always are when you are making choices. But these choices are necessary at this crucial time in our history to get us on the right track. I would urge Members to come speak about the budget, learn more about the budget, and vote for the budget when we have the chance. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our majority leader.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), to talk about the second important pillar of our budget. Strength. The second is growth.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, strength, growth, and opportunity are the hallmarks of our budget. To speak about the strength portion of our budget, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), a distinguished member of our committee). (Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I would even provide the gentlewoman with some time if she can find that in the budget. I have got the budget here. If she can find volleyball or the Women's Athletic Act or anything in this budget, I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman if she can find that for me in my budget.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a beloved member of the Dubuque, Iowa community. Phil Roos was truly a special teacher and coach and he was tragically taken from us at the age of 57. Phil leaves not only the lives of his family, but of those many students and athletes whose lives he touched for over 30 years. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize Phil and ask that the attached article from the Dubuque Telegraph Herald be placed along with my comments in the Record. Roos Made Everyone Feel Special (By Bill Speltz) Phil Roos had a special gift. Oh sure, he was an excellent math teacher and tennis coach and one of the founding fathers of a strong intramural program at Hempstead. He was also a darn good athlete in his day, especially with a racket in his hand (legend has it he'd play his students in a game of badminton to 50, spot them 49 points and still win). But there are a lot of good teachers, coaches and athletes out there. The fact Roos was all three is impressive, but it all seems small compared to his finest quality as a human being. Phil was special because he made you feel good about yourself. He made you feel like you were an extraordinary person, and it motivated you to prove him right. How do you replace someone like that? How do you make sense of Roos dying of brain cancer Sunday at the age of 57? You don't. ``He had such a wonderful way of bonding with kids,'' said Natalie Nemmers, Roos' assistant coach for the boys tennis team the past three seasons. ``We kind of built this family, and he would've done anything for the boys, because he was so proud of them. ``He used to get so nervous before meets. But he would never show it. He just wanted so much for the boys, and they knew he loved them.'' Roos' Hempstead family stretched far beyond tennis players in his 33 years at the school. Between his teaching and an intramural program that has about 500 participants annually, countless young adults were touched by this upbeat, kind- hearted man. ``What a tremendous loss,'' Hempstead athletic director Harry Robbins said. ``His students and his athletes just loved him, and the reason they loved him is because he was able to connect with them. ``The best way I can describe Phil Roos is he stood for all the right things in life. Great father, husband, role model for young people. Students would seek him out because he always had time to talk about whatever they wanted to talk about, just trying to help.'' For all his tennis coaching success, Roos' most admirable moment may have come three years ago, when he ended a 15-year coaching retirement to help revive the Mustangs' struggling boys program. Not many would make the same move, mainly because tennis takes a ton of time and weather conditions in the spring are often cold and windy. Concerned about all the time he would spend away from his family, Roos made Hempstead tennis a family affair. His son, seventh-grader Andrew, joined the team for practice every day. His ``other'' sons drank in every bit of advice Phil offered, and the result is a program that's back on the upswing. ``A lot of times, on school (athletic) trips, guys will be fighting for the back seat of the bus because they never want to sit by the coach of the team,'' Hempstead senior Jason Burkle said. ``For me, it was just the opposite with Coach Roos. I wanted to sit up front. ``What I liked most is the way he controlled the team, yet he still knew how to have a lot of fun.'' For those who knew him, Roos' kindness was infectious and his calm demeanor admirable. Just ask Craig Olson, Hempstead girls tennis coach and Roos' former rival as leader of the Dubuque Senior boys tennis program in the 1980s. ``With him, there was no screaming or yelling, and he was the same way with his teaching,'' Olson said. ``He'd inspire you. ``I was just tickled he came back to coach again these last few years. I remember when I first started out coaching, I was more of an enthusiastic, `rah-rah' type of guy. Watching him, I learned patience.'' Phil's spirit lives on in all his students, past and present, and all those who knew him. It lives on in his wife, Julie, and his best friend, son Andrew, who is truly a chip off the old block. By the time Andrew is old enough to play his first high school tennis match, Phil's players are hoping to have the Hempstead courts named in the coach's honor. In the meantime, Phil's extended family will try to make some sense of his death at today's funeral. That's going to be about as easy as trying to beat Phil in badminton. ``He made people,'' said Ryan Denman, Hempstead senior tennis player. ``He taught us how to live our lives and taught us that it wasn't about winning or losing, but that we always gave 100 percent. ``It's going to be very rough playing tennis this season, from the first day to the last. We'll play the season for him.''

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels on on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2004 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 501 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through February 6, 2004. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2008. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. A separate allocation for the Medicare program, as established under section 401(a)(3) of the budget resolution, is shown for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2013. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2004 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. This table also compares the current level of total discretionary appropriations with the section 302(a) allocation for the Appropriations Committee. These comparisons are needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would branch either the section 302(a) allocation or the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The last table gives the current level for 2005 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 501 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 501 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and for her leadership on this issue, as well as the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, America has got a big decision tonight and seniors have been waiting a long time. The previous gentleman said that seniors when they wake up tomorrow, if this passes, will find out they still have to pay a little bit of money. Some will not have to pay at all, but seniors will really be mad if they wake up tomorrow morning and find out that we failed yet again. Four budgets in a row we have had the pleasure of putting into our budget plan a prescription drug benefit. This year is the first time we have been able to get it to this point, a conference report; and that is because the President of the United States has provided the leadership to get us to this point. In Iowa we have been waiting for 20 years for fairness when it comes to reimbursement. We have been waiting for 20 years when it comes to the difficulty of recruiting physicians and other health care providers. We have been waiting 20 years to stop the cost shifting to the private side of health care that drives up the cost for small business people and farmers. We have been waiting for 20 years for seniors to have prevention and drug benefits and basic services. Tonight we have the opportunity to solve so many of these problems. It is not perfect, as many people have said; but it is on the road toward making Medicare a fiscally responsible, sound and a very beneficial program for seniors. And it is fiscally responsible. I know there are Members who are suggesting that somehow this may not be perfectly fiscally responsible. Let me ask you the question, If we do nothing tonight, is Medicare going bankrupt? Wake up if you want to talk about fiscal responsibility. We are seeing a program go bankrupt before our very eyes. Doing nothing is not an option. It is fiscally responsible to fix a program that we know is going bankrupt, to fix a program that would have a prescription drug benefit if it were created today, to fix a program that is not paying the bills in rural America and keeping doctors and health care professionals located there to provide quality health care. Vote for this bill because it is fiscally responsible. We have been waiting long enough. Seniors deserve our answer tonight.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support a long overdue, welcome victory for Iowa's seniors and health care providers. Medicare's policies have penalized health care providers in Iowa and other rural areas since the 1960s. While Medicare's primary purpose is to provide health care for seniors, its policies affect both our health care system and our economy. The flawed policies have had an impact not only on seniors, but on all Iowans. As many of my House colleagues know, I have worked long and hard to address the problems affecting health care providers in rural states such as Iowa. In fact, I wrote this year's budget to reserve significant resources for rural health care as part of a $400 billion Medicare Reserve Fund. Later, in the Ways and Means Committee, I successfully amended the Medicare legislation to ensure that sufficient rural health care funds were included in the bill that was reported from committee. And I continued fighting on the House floor to ensure that these funds--the most generous rural package ever considered by the House--remained in the Medicare legislation as it worked its way through the House. Today, we are considering a conference report that carries this rural health care package to the end of the process. The benefits for Iowa will be multiplied for years to come. This conference report contains an unprecedented $25 billion rural package including benefits of over $400 million for Iowa alone. I am proud to have worked toward this day with the distinguished chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and with the senior Senator from my home state of Iowa. With these significant strides to improve Medicare's reimbursement policies on Iowa's behalf, we help our health care providers to pay the bills and to continue recruiting and retaining top-notch professionals. With a more secure health care system in place, we can further job creation and economic growth for our state. In addition to taking several steps to strengthen the overall program, we are, of course, finally giving seniors what they have sought since Medicare's inception in 1965--a prescription drug benefit that is affordable, accessible and completely voluntary. All seniors will save on their current prescription drug costs. Another important feature in the bill is the provision to establish Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). These accounts will allow pre-retirees to accumulate tax-free savings over their lifetime and these savings will remain with the individual once they reach Medicare eligibility. Even with reforms such as these, I want to remind my colleagues that Medicare will still face long-term demographic pressures and Congress will likely have to take additional steps to address the program's sustainability. Finally, as Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am pleased that the Medicare conference report--with a total cost of around $395 billion-- is generally consistent with the $400 billion Medicare Reserve Fund that was laid out in this year's budget resolution. In a year of intense demands for limited government resources, this Medicare Reserve Fund was the largest policy initiative in the budget resolution and was arguably its centerpiece. Because the budget resolution struck a responsible balance between seniors' needs on the one hand and affordability on the other, we were able to generally stay within our own guidelines. I commend the conferees for staying within the $400 billion threshold. Mr. Speaker, I have been spreading the word and twisting arms for a long time on behalf of legislation that would meet Iowa's health care needs. I am gratified that our message has been received and our persistence has paid off.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2004 and for the 5-year period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 501 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through November 14, 2003. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2008. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. A separate allocation for the Medicare program, as established under section 401(a)(3) of the budget resolution, is shown for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2013. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2004 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. This table also compares the current level of total discretionary appropriations with the section 302(a) allocation for the Appropriations Committee. These comparisons are needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach either the section 302(a) allocation or the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The last table gives the current level for 2005 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 501 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 501 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, as I communicate with Iowans, they often share their concern about our country's economic vulnerability in regard to its energy supply. Spikes in oil and gas prices, high utility costs and the dangers of a heavy reliance on foreign suppliers have a very real impact on our rural economy and Iowans' family budgets. I rise today to express my support for the long-awaited, comprehensive energy policy legislation. America's long-term national energy policies must include a focus on developing the renewable sources of energy that can be produced in this country. This energy bill makes farmers in Iowa and other states part of the solution by moving the nation toward a common-sense future that is less dependent on fossil-based sources of energy. With the establishment of an overall Renewable Fuels Standard for motor fuels, significant portions of all U.S. gasoline will be required to contain renewable fuel content, including ethanol and biodiesel. This provision alone will create more than 200,000 jobs over the next decade. The bill goes well beyond previous efforts to promote value-added agriculture by streamlining and making new incentives for ethanol production as well as creating a new tax credit for biodiesel production. This legislation simplifies a very complicated tax system for Iowa's ethanol producers and taxpayers while ensuring these payments are properly credited toward vital transportation priorities. These tax reforms are significant developments for Iowa's future because they promote the development of small ethanol cooperatives, create value-added business opportunities, and ensure the long-term future of Iowa's transportation needs. The bill also supports enhanced energy efficiency and conservation, environmental protection measures and domestic production. Consumers will be encouraged to purchase more fuel-efficient automobiles and make sensible home improvements. New, advanced environmental friendly technologies will be promoted. In addition, electricity generation and transmission will be strengthened to help rural electric cooperatives and public and private utilities provide affordable electricity to their customers. My support for the bill is somewhat tempered by the recognition that it exceeds the spending limits established by the FY 2004 budget resolution. I believe that many of the key objectives of this bill could have been realized within the confines of the budget resolution. By contrast, the tax provisions, while significant in cost are fully consistent with the revenue levels established by this year's budget. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Energy Policy Act represents impressive progress toward a balanced, long-term energy policy to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, stabilize prices for consumers and stimulate our economy. I am particularly proud of the renewable energy provision in this bill and urge my colleagues to join me in approving this significant legislation.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, as I communicate with Iowans, they often share their concern about our country's economic vulnerability in regard to its energy supply. Spikes in oil and gas prices, high utility costs and the dangers of a heavy reliance on foreign suppliers have a very real impact on our rural economy and Iowans' family budgets. I rise today to express my support for the long-awaited, comprehensive energy policy legislation. America's long-term national energy policies must include a focus on developing the renewable sources of energy that can be produced in this country. This energy bill makes farmers in Iowa and other States part of the solution by moving the Nation toward a common-sense future that is less dependent on fossil-based sources of energy. With the establishment of an overall Renewable Fuels Standard for motor fuels, significant portions of all U.S. gasoline will be required to contain renewable fuel content, including ethanol and biodiesel. This provision alone will create more than 200,000 jobs over the next decade. The bill goes well beyond previous efforts to promote value-added agriculture by streamlining and making new incentives for ethanol production as well as creating a new tax credit for biodiesel production. This legislation simplifies a very complicated tax system for Iowa's ethanol producers and taxpayers while ensuring these payments are properly credited toward vital transportation priorities. These tax reforms are significant developments for Iowa's future because they promote the development of small ethanol cooperatives, create value-added business opportunities, and ensure the long-term future of Iowa's transportation needs. The bill also supports enhanced energy efficiency and conservation, environmental protection measures and domestic production. Consumers will be encouraged to purchase more fuel-efficient automobiles and make sensible home improvements. New, advanced environmentally friendly technologies will be promoted. In addition, electricity generation and transmission will be strengthened to help rural electric cooperatives and public and private utilities provide affordable electricity to their customers. My support for the bill is somewhat tempered by the recognition that it exceeds the spending limits established by the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. I believe that many of the key objectives of this bill could have been realized within the confines of the budget resolution. By contrast, the tax provisions, while significant in cost, are fully consistent with the revenue levels established by this year's budget. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Energy Policy Act represents impressive progress toward a balanced, long-term energy policy to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, stabilize prices for consumers and stimulate our economy. I am particularly proud of the renewable energy provisions in this bill and urge my colleagues to join me in approving this significant legislation.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2004 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 501 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through October 15, 2003. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2008. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. A separate allocation for the Medicare program, as established under section 401(a)(3) of the budget resolution, is shown for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2013. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the Committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2004 with the ``section 302(b)'' allocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. This table also compares the current level of total discretionary appropriations with the section 302(a) allocation for the Appropriations Committee. These comparisons are needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach either the section 302(a) allocation or the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The last table gives the current level for 2005 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 501 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 501 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2765, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. And I commend Chairman Young for bringing this, the 13th appropriations bill, to the floor. Under authority granted in Article I of the United States Constitution (section 8, clause 17), this bill appropriates Federal payments to the District to fund certain activities, and also approves the District of Columbia's entire budget, including the expenditure of local funds ($7.4 billion in local funds for fiscal year 2004). Although the vast majority of the funds discussed in this bill are local funds originating from the District of Columbia, I speak today only about the $466 million in Federal funds appropriated in this bill. H.R. 2765 as reported to the House, provides $466 million in new budget authority. This bill is equal to the 302(b) suballocation for the District of Columbia subcommittee as adopted by the Appropriations Committee on July 22nd. I can report that this bill is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, which Congress adopted as its fiscal blueprint on April 10. The bill therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority. H.R. 2765 contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, no advanced appropriations, nor does it include rescissions of previously enacted appropriations. The bill is $45 million above the President's request, these increases include $20 million for the water and sewer authority, and an additional $10 million for the District of Columbia scholarship program, $8 million for a unified communications center, and an additional $7 million for public school facilities and the family literacy programs. In summary, this, the final appropriations bill, comes to the floor in a form that is consistent with the Budget Resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2004 and for the 5-year period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 501 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through September 3, 2003. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2008. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. A separate allocation for the Medicare program, as established under section 401(a)(3) of the budget resolution, is shown for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2013. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2004 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The last table gives the current level for 2005 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 501 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 501 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield?

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim the time and just report that we have had one successful bill that already has moved to the floor that reduced, for waste, fraud, and abuse, $33 billion in a mandatory program called Medicare. It was part of the bill that was voted on and passed by this House. So, again, to suggest that nothing has been done is not correct.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield.