Jim Nussle

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 June 13, 2003, and incorporates revisions to the budget resolution made on June 12, 2003, to reflect the enactment of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-27). 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 year 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 of 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, in accordance with section 507 of H. Con. Res. 95 and consistent with section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution to reflect the enactment of H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (P.L. 108- 27). Section 201 of the budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) directed the Committee on Ways and Means to report a bill that would increase outlays and reduce revenue by specified amounts. The conference report accompanying H.R. 2 exceeded the target for outlays, but reduced revenue by less than the amount allowed under the revenue target. Since the overage in outlays was within 20 percent of the total cost of the bill and was offset on the revenue side, as permitted under section 310 of the Budget Act, the conference report was deemed to be in compliance with its reconciliation instructions. I am, therefore, adjusting the 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Ways and Means to reflect the enacted levels of budget authority, outlays and revenue in the tax bill. This will hold other measures assumed in the budget resolution harmless for the permissible variance in budget authority and revenue between the budget resolution and enacted tax bill. Accordingly, the adjusted 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Ways and Means is as follows: Fiscal year 2003: $14,576,000,000 in new budget authority and $14,512,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2004: $20,626,000,000 in new budget authority and $20,054,000,000 in outlays. The period of fiscal years 2004-2008: $24,079,000,000 in new budget authority and $23,876,000,000 in outlays. The period of fiscal years 2004-2013: $39,261,000,000 in new budget authority and $39,128,000,000 in outlays. The changes in the Ways and Means allocation cause changes in the budgetary aggregates. Accordingly, I also modify the budgetary aggregates to the following levels: Fiscal year 2003: $1,877,204,000 in new budget authority and $1,829,299,000 in outlays; $1,310,347,000 in revenues. Fiscal year 2004: $1,880,555,000 in new budget authority and $1,903,502,000 in outlays. The period of fiscal years 2004-2013: $19,632,020,000,000 in revenues. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski at 67270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the longtime and exemplary public service of Barry B. Anderson, Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office, CBO. Barry is leaving CBO to pursue new challenges as a fiscal advisor to the International Monetary Fund. Barry has been involved in Federal budgeting and program evaluation for more than 30 years. He began his career in 1972 with the General Accounting Office. In 1980, he moved to the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, where he was a budget examiner for various programs. In 1988, he was promoted to the senior career civil servant position in OMB, which he held for 10 years. He was responsible for directing the analysis and the production of the President's budget under the administrations of Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. In 1999, Barry joined CBO as the Deputy Director under Dan L. Crippen. In that capacity, he directed the operations of the agency, helping CBO to build a stronger staff, obtain better access to data, and improve administrative processes. He testified on budget trends and conceptual budget issues, and represented the United States at the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. In January of this year, Barry served briefly as the Acting Director of CBO. During his tenure as CBO's Deputy and Acting Director, Barry's expertise, experience, and broad knowledge of the Federal budget proved invaluable to the Budget Committee and to the Congress. Barry has built a reputation as a staunch guardian of budgetary integrity and honesty. He has helped to oversee CBO during a tumultuous period of Federal budgeting, and his advice and counsel will be greatly missed. So, on the occasion of Barry Anderson's departure from CBO, I want to commend his many accomplishments and wish him well in the new challenges that await him in the next phase of his distinguished career.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 252. This important resolution expresses the House of Representatives' supports for American efforts within the World Trade Organization (WTO) to end the European Union's unfair trade practices regarding agriculture biotechnology. These trade practices are protectionist and discriminatory, and have been in place the past five years. In 2001, the United States and other industrialized countries produced almost 109 million acres of genetically modified foods. These foods are modified, safely, to reduce the application of pesticides, reduce soil erosion and create an environment more hospitable to wildlife. These foods are resilient and can grow in areas often inhospitable to agriculture. Genetically modified foods hold great promise in alleviating hunger in developing areas of the world. The European Union, acting without scientific basis, enacted a moratorium on genetically modified foods in October 1998. Since then, this moratorium has blocked more than $300 million annually in American corn exports to countries in the European Union. This action has had a damaging effect on agricultural exports from the United States, particularly from Iowa. Allow me to describe the devastating effect this action has had on many developing countries in Africa. Earlier this year, I traveled to several nations in sub-Saharan Africa. I met people trying to help themselves with their own hard work, and through the humanitarian efforts of the United States and other nations. Far too many people in Africa depend on food from other countries, and far too many are starving. Genetically modified food could withstand the intolerant climate and harsh growing landscapes common in the area. But because of fear about future exports to Europe, these African nations have held back from a wonderful opportunity to promote agriculture in their own nations. Just last year, humanitarian food aid sent to Africa from the United States was rejected. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. Iowa is America's second-largest agriculture exporter, sending $3.2 billion worth of commodities and value-added products overseas. There is much promise in using biotechnology to change to the face of agriculture. Biotechnology is now being researched to create custom- made pharmaceuticals and renewable ingredients for industrial use. The cities of Waterloo and Davenport in my district are working to make value-added agriculture the driving force of their economic growth. They are making significant investments to reach this end. It is clear that continued research and production is needed to make these investments pay off for these communities and the rest of the Midwest. Mr. Speaker, we took a tremendous step forward by granting the President trade promotion authority. As the U.S. begins to negotiate trade agreements with this authority, it is critical we demonstrate that protectionist and discriminatory practices, like those used by the EU, will not be tolerated. the U.S. must now take further action within the WTO. I applaud the President and the U.S. Trade Representative's interest in taking action on this critical issue now. Accordingly, I urge passage of this resolution supporting Administration efforts through the WTO.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, Iowans should be proud of the tremendous accomplishments of our dedicated troops over the last couple of years, particularly those serving with Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. These men and women have risked their lives and made sacrifices to keep their country safe and secure. We should thank each and every one of them, and welcome them home with honor. Our thanks must also extend to the loved ones of those who serve. Family members do their best to carry on with their lives while they wait, worry, and sometimes watch, what their son, daughter, wife, husband, father or mother is facing on the other side of the world. Some families have been changed forever by tragic loss. Steve and Marilyn Korthaus of Davenport, Iowa will always miss their son Bradley, a Marine sergeant who died bravely in Iraq in March. They will also be forever proud of him. May they find comfort in knowing he died with honor, and may all of us join them in appreciating the sacrifice he made in the name of freedom. While our men and women in uniform have accomplished so much in Iraq and in the overall war on terror, important work remains. They may not be in front of us 24 hours a day on television, but it is vital to remember and support those troops still deployed to the Persian Gulf and other areas around the world. The Ohnesorge family of Dubuque, Iowa is keenly aware that many of our troops remain in danger. Their son, Army Specialist Abraham Ohnesorge, was seriously injured just last week by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq. As members of Congress, we can show our gratitude to Brad, Abraham and the thousands of other troops serving us by providing whatever resources are necessary to defend our nation and win the continuing war against terrorism. It is an unquestioned priority for Iowans and for all Americans. Our armed forces need the newest and best tools available to meet the challenges they face. We should also provide fair and equitable pay, housing and tax policies for members of the military. As House Budget Committee chairman, I take each of these responsibilities very seriously. The excellent work accomplished in support of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom by the employees of the Rock Island Arsenal also deserves our gratitude. These dedicated workers rose to the challenge. Many members of military reserve units and the National Guard were called from the civilian world. The employers and coworkers who support their service should also be commended. America is blessed to have such well-trained individuals of excellence who are willing to serve not only our interests, but the interests of the entire world. May we see a day when all our troops deployed in the far reaches of the world are home safely with the people they love.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. The question is, where is the money? The money is in the pockets of the people that earn it. The government earns no money. Tax cuts do not cost the government. And that is the argument you are going to hear tonight. It is that if you believe when you reduce taxes somehow that costs government, then you believe that you have to borrow. But the interesting thing about what we believe on the majority side is that the money comes from the people that earn it, and we are leaving it in their pockets. And the only reason we would need to borrow money is for excess spending in Washington, D.C. So if you want to continue to borrow and if you want to continue to spend and if you want to continue to waste the taxpayers' dollars, then continue to consider the arguments of the minority. But if you want to grow the economy, if you know that the economy starts with people working in America earning a living and paying a little bit, sometimes too much of it to Washington, D.C., if you believe that, and if you know that based on that, getting the economy going is the most important thing we can do, not only for our short- term budget and our long-term budget but getting the economy going is the most important thing we can do to the long-term health of Medicare, Social Security and our country, let us pass this bill tonight, let us realize whose money this is in the first place. It is the American people's money. Let us leave it in their pockets.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. The question we have to ask ourselves after we heard that very interesting dissertation is where is this money that he is talking about? And that is what I thought I heard. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. The authorizations of appropriations in this important piece of legislation are consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the Congressional Budget Resolution. On April 11, this body passed a conference report that made available the budgetary resources for our most urgent constitutional responsibility--the common defense. We provided $400.6 billion in budget authority for national defense. The principal reason for these considerable budget resources is, of course, Congress's unwavering commitment to win the war against terrorism. But in addition to combating terrorism, we provided a blueprint in the resolution to give service members a pay raise averaging 4.1 percent, increased housing allowances, and increased incentive pay. Consistent with the resolution, the bill we are considering today also contains levels of weapons procurement not seen since the Reagan administration, and the largest amount ever for research and development. This bill improves our national security by striking a balance between modernizing existing forces and investing in transformational capabilities. U.S. forces have seen nearly every type of conflict in recent months, from air campaigns and armored warfare, to special operations and urban street combat. They have fought terrorists and irregular forces while conducting psychological warfare and other convert operations. H.R. 1588 draws on the ``lessons learned'' from those conflicts. The budget resolution also provided an allocation of $70 million so that proceeds from Post Exchanges and other facilities on closed bases can be re-applied without an appropriation. H.R. 1588 would codify that in law. I will note that H.R. 1588 contains a provision affecting the Pentagon's Military Housing Privatization Initiative. There were some technical problems because the Congressional Budget Office has recently reconsidered its scoring rules for activities involving loans, loan guarantees, and other ways the government encourages private sector participation in military housing projects. But working together, the Armed Services and Budget Committees have achieved an agreement that allows this program to be appropriately reflected in the budget. I am pleased that we were able to resolve this issue in a spirit of cooperation. Several provisions of this bill directly affect thousands of my constituents who work at the Rock Island Arsenal in the Quad Cities in Eastern Iowa. Funding for the Army's Future Combat Systems program, increased funding for replenishing of munitions stocks, and overall spending levels will enhance the ability of these workers to continue their very important job. The employees of the Rock Island Arsenal do a superb job of equipping the world's best Army, and this bill reflects Congress's continued commitment to those workers. With that I express my support for H.R. 1588.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record targets for the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse in Government programs under the authority of Section 301 of H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 (H. Rept. 108-71). Section 301 of the budget resolution requires House and Senate authorizing committees to submit findings to the Committees on the Budget that provide for the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse in programs under their jurisdiction. The level of savings to be achieved by each committee was left unspecified in the budget resolution; the Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget were directed to submit those levels of savings for publication in the Record subsequent to adoption of the budget resolution. The following savings targets, which are consistent with the level of savings expected from Senate authorizing committees, represent the minimum expectations for cost reductions derived from the improvement of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of programs within the jurisdiction of each House committee. The publication of these targets does not represent a level of programmatic reductions (``cuts'') mandated by the Committees on the Budget, but rather a recommendation that the committees of jurisdiction find efficiencies equal to 1 percent of the net cost of the programs within their jurisdiction through the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse.

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 fiscal year 2004 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through May 19, 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. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY03.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY03.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY03.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY03.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20MY03.005 Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, May 20, 2003. Hon. Jim Nussle, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The enclosed report shows the effects of Congressional action on the fiscal year 2004 budget and is current through May 19, 2003. This report is submitted under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2004. The budget resolution figures incorporate revisions submitted by the Committee on the Budget to the House to reflect funding for the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations act. These revisions are authorized by section 421 of H. Con. Res. 95. This is my first letter for fiscal year 2004. Since the beginning of the first session of the 108th Congress, the Congress has cleared and the President has signed the following acts that changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues for 2004: the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003 (Public Law 108-7), the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-11) and the American 5-Cent Coin Design Continuity Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-15). The effects of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003 are included in the previously enacted section of the enclosed table. The effects of all other new laws are identified separately. Sincerely, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director. Enclosure.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, just like last year when the Democrats did not have a budget, this year they do not have an economic plan. They have a press release that they rushed to the floor today, had it put into legislative language, but it is basically a press release. What does it do? It spends and it taxes. In fact, in the Committee on Ways and Means, half of the amendments that were introduced raised taxes on the American people. I do not know what economics book they are reading; but not only do we not raise taxes during a recession, but as the gentleman earlier said, it does not cost the government when we talk about tax cuts. Taxes cost Americans. When we leave money in the pockets of the people that earned the money in the first place, that is what is called America. When we tax and spend, that is what is called liberalism. Unfortunately, that is what we are offered with more today. The Democratic plan increases the debt actually more than the Republican plan. Just like the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, the plan for the Republicans increases the debt; we have had the Democratic plan scored over 10 years, and it increases the debt $1.7 trillion.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2--``The Jobs and Growth Act of 2003.'' This bill is appropriately named--it provides tax relief to boost economic growth and create jobs. And that is what workers and their families in Iowa and across the nation need today--a stronger economy and more jobs. We cannot afford to sit back and do nothing. We are rising to the challenge and taking action to get our economy growing again. We will help ensure that every worker who wants a job can be fully employed. The economy is struggling to overcome a number of shocks that no one anticipated: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; a recession; the ongoing war on terror; military conflicts in Afghanistan and in Iraq; and a bursting of the stock market bubble. We should be thankful that our Nation's economy has been relatively resilient in the face of such shocks. Things could be much worse. In 2001, we passed tax relief legislation--including $40 billion in tax rebates--that was perfectly timed to help keep the recession from being worse than it was. Last year, we passed stimulus legislation-- ``The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act''--that included business investment incentives and extended unemployment benefits. Without these policies, the economy would be in much worse shape and an additional 1\1/2\ million jobs would have been lost. But things aren't as good as we want them to be. Our economy has lost 2 million jobs over the past 2 years and the unemployment rate is up to 6 percent. We've had a half million jobs lost in just the last 3 months. Real GDP is growing at only 1\1/2\ percent over the past 6 months. The evidence is clear: We need to adopt policies to help boost our economy and create jobs. This bill will do that. It will help families in Iowa. It will help businesses. It will promote investment and jobs. It will help to get our economy growing again. It provides for immediate help for all taxpayers, including lower income tax rates, increased child tax credits, and marriage penalty relief. When it comes to job creation, small businesses are the engine that keeps our economy pumping. Small business investment in Iowa and across the nation will particularly benefit from the higher depreciation allowances that will reduce the cost of new equipment that businesses need to maintain operations and grow. There will be an improved flow of investment funds for new capital investments from the reduction in capital gains and dividend income tax rates. We've heard various estimates about how many jobs the President's plan would create; or how many jobs a bill at $550 billion, or at $350 billion would create. Or how many the Democrats want to claim from their proposal. What we know is that this bill, H.R. 2, has more tax relief in FY 2003 and FY 2004 than was even included in the President's plan. It certainly has more tax relief than in the Democrats' plan--and more total stimulus, too. The tax relief of this bill will clearly help to create as many or more jobs than either the President's plan or the Democrats's plan--and the numbers we've heard for those plans are in the range of 1 million to 1.4 million jobs. This bill will boost jobs by well over a million jobs by the end of 2004. This legislation will add an estimated more than 9,000 jobs in Iowa just in 2004 alone. Our plan will promote sustained growth in the economy and jobs. The Democratic plan is like a rug pulled out from underneath the economy. They want to raise taxes by nearly $200 billion. Their plan would kill economic growth and jobs right when growth was getting started. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I can say that the $550 billion of tax relief in H.R. 2 is within the revenue and spending levels provided in the budget resolution. In fact, the budget resolution provides for as much as $1.2 trillion of tax relief. And, I can remind everyone that the budget resolution shows a return to a balanced budget. We are in favor of the tax relief that the bill under consideration provides--but we also provide that tax relief with an eye toward boosting the economy and returning the budget to balance. I urge my colleagues in the House to support this bill--to support growth in our economy and growth in jobs, and all within a framework of returning the budget to balance.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates established by H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2004. The authority to make these adjustments is derived from Sections 421 and 507 of H. Con. Res. 95 (H. Rept. 108-71). As enacted, H.R. 1559, a bill making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, contains changes in new budget authority, outlays and revenues that differ from those assumed in the budget resolution. For fiscal year 2003, the supplemental provides $4,432,000,000 in budget authority, $3,745,000,000 in outlays, and $2,000,000 in revenues above the amounts assumed in H. Con. Res. 95. The supplemental also provides $215,000,000 in additional new budget authority and $332,000,000 in additional outlays for fiscal year 2004; over the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013, it provides an additional $888,000,000 in budget authority and $1,406,000,000 in outlays over the amounts assumed in the resolution. Under section 421 of the resolution, the Chairman of the Budget Committees are authorized to adjust the budget resolution to reflect the differences between the levels assumed in the budget resolution for the supplemental and the levels provided in the enacted bill. The adjusted levels of budget authority and outlays in the functional levels for net interest (900) and allowances (920) are as follows: net interest (900) Fiscal year 2003: $240,203,000,000 in new budget authority and $240,203,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2004: $259,528,000,000 in new budget authority and $259,528,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2005: $310,822,000,000 in new budget authority and $310,822,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2006: $352,463,000,000 in new budget authority and $352,463,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2007: $380,846,000,000 in new budget authority and $380,846,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2008: $405,947,000,000 in new budget authority and $405,947,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2009: $429,867,000,000 in new budget authority and $429,867,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2010: $450,997,000,000 in new budget authority and $450,997,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2011: $473,746,000,000 in new budget authority and $473,746,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2012: $496,401,000,000 in new budget authority and $496,401,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2013: $514,926,000,000 in new budget authority and $514,926,000,000 in outlays. allowances (920) Fiscal year 2003: $79,190,000,000 in new budget authority and $42,024,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2004: -$7,406,000,000 in new budget authority and $22,678,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2005: -$6,366,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,921,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2006: -$7,151,000,000 in new budget authority and - $5,581,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2007: -$8,835,000,000 in new budget authority and - $8,666,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2008: -$9,875,000,000 in new budget authority and - $9,873,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2009: -$11,476,000,000 in new budget authority and - $9,922,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2010: -$12,860,000,000 in new budget authority and - $10,864,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2011: -$16,396,000,000 in new budget authority and - $12,653,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2012: -$21,444,000,000 in new budget authority and - $15,691,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2013: -$25,608,000,000 in new budget authority and - $19,171,000,000 in outlays. The changes in the functional levels cause changes in the budgetary aggregates. Accordingly, I also modify the budgetary aggregates and revenues for fiscal years 2003 through 2013 to the following levels: budget authority, outlays, and revenues Fiscal year 2003: $1,867,072,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,819,167,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2003: $1,303,113,000,000 in revenues. The amount by which revenues should be reduced, fiscal year 2003: $56,721,000,000. Fiscal year 2004: $1,861,333,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,884,280,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2005: $1,990,603,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,981,995,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2006: $2,122,725,000,000 in new budget authority and $2,089,892,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2007: $2,233,213,000,000 in new budget authority and $2,190,978,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2008: $2,349,256,000,000 in new budget authority and $2,307,637,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2009: $2,454,814,000,000 in new budget authority and $2,420,227,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2010: $2,555,986,000,000 in new budget authority and $2,528,260,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2011: $2,669,845,000,000 in new budget authority and $2,651,603,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2012: $2,754,409,000,000 in new budget authority and $2,724,337,000,000 in outlays. Fiscal year 2013: $2,875,544,000,000 in new budget authority and $2,855,914,000,000 in outlays. deficits (on-budget) Fiscal year 2003: $516,054,000,000. Fiscal year 2004: $558,828,000,000. Fiscal year 2005: $488,120,000,000. Fiscal year 2006: $432,381,000,000. Fiscal year 2007: $400,727,000,000. Fiscal year 2008: $405,793,000,000. Fiscal year 2009: $366,465,000,000. Fiscal year 2010: $360,323,000,000. Fiscal year 2011: $381,063,000,000. Fiscal year 2012: $314,765,000,000. Fiscal year 2013: $301,929,000,000. debt subject to limit Fiscal year 2003: $6,750,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2004: $7,388,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2005: $7,982,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2006: $8,540,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2007: $9,069,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2008: $9,608,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2009: $10,109,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2010: $10,608,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2011: $11,132,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2012: $11,596,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2013: $12,048,000,000,000. debt held by the public Fiscal year 2003: $3,921,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2004: $4,303,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2005: $4,604,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2006: $4,835,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2007: $5,013,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2008: $5,175,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2009: $5,278,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2010: $5,356,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2011: $5,435,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2012: $5,432,000,000,000. Fiscal year 2013: $5,402,000,000,000. These changes in the budget resolution also affect the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations. The 302(a) allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations becomes $844,986,000,000 in new budget authority and $846,706,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year 2004, the allocation to the Appropriations Committee is $784,675,000,000 in new budget authority and $861,084,000,000 in outlays.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1350, which reforms and re-Authorizes the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Nation's primary special education law. This reauthorization of IDEA offers an opportunity to renew our commitment to students with special needs in Iowa and across the country. IDEA laws and funding decisions impact all students, regardless of whether they have special educational needs. I commend the Education Committee for authorizing in this bill special education funding increases for the next two years in line with the amounts provided in the fiscal year 2004 conference budget resolution. This includes a $2.2 billion increase in 2004, followed by another $2.5 billion increases on top of that for 2005. These funding increases would bring us more than halfway toward our ultimate goal of funding 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for each child served under IDEA. These funding levels will result in the Federal Government paying 21 percent of these costs in 2004 and 25 percent the following year. Let's take a moment to acknowledge just how far we have come in funding special education in recent years. The increases in this bill build upon the dramatic rise in special education funding already provided by the Republican Congress. Since 1995, annual special education funding has risen from $2.3 billion to $8.9 billion. We've gone from 7 percent Federal funding to 17 percent. In the first few years of the previous administration, special education funding remained essentially flat, with no increase in the Federal share. I also want to point out that the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution includes mandatory funding to help address the national shortage of special education teachers by allowing Federal loan forgiveness of up to $17,500 for special education teachers who teach in disadvantaged school districts. Funding is only one piece of the puzzle in improving education. We must ensure that significant improvements are made to the system. Iowa's students deserve no less. I am pleased this bill includes critical reforms to enhance educational performance while reducing the bureaucratic red tape that teachers and school administrators in Iowa tell me can get in the way of what is most important: teaching. H.R. 1350 substantially reduces the paperwork requirement of annual individualized education plans (IEPS) by giving parents the option of choosing a three-year IEP, instead of having to craft a new one every year. The bill grants school districts greater flexibility to more accurately classify students to avoid wrongly identifying as disabled those who may have a less severe condition. This growing problem hinders the progress of affected students and indirectly impacts all students. There will be expanded choices for parents by allowing IDEA funds to be used in some cases to obtain supplemental education services, including services offered by private educational providers. The bill also increases the flexibility of local school districts in making decisions about discipline for individual special education students. This flexibility can enhance the educational environment for all students. This is a necessary step I have been advocating for some time. I support this bill and applaud the efforts of Mr. Boehner and Mr. Castle to improve the Nation's special education law at a time as we continue working to ensure that no child is left behind in America's classrooms.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, there are obviously a number of people who have toiled here late tonight. We want to thank the House staff that have stayed with us here this evening, and the reporters and the Clerk's office. We appreciate their hard work and sticking with us through these things. I would like to thank my staff of the Committee on the Budget on the majority side. Rich Meade is my chief of staff, and we have a number of very professional people who got us to this point in time. The Members get to make the speeches and to cast the votes, but the staff do the hard work in getting us here. In both the House and in the other body, we have had a great working relationship with those professional staffs. We want to thank them and congratulate them for a job well done. I would also like to thank the members of my committee who worked hard on this, as well as the members of my committee on the opposite side of the aisle. I have no better competitor in this process and no one that I respect more than the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt); and while we have to differ so on substance tonight, we do share a love for the process and enjoyment in working through these issues even though we do not always get our way in the final analysis. But I want to congratulate the gentleman for his work. As I say, there is no one who knows this process and this budget issue better than my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to our very distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to just be able to respond and say we increase the transportation fund $30 billion. I cannot believe that the gentleman would suggest that that is a paltry sum, number one; and, number two, you better get with the other communicators, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, because they are talking about not increasing the debt. Spending more money, seems to me we have got to increase that debt.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, Member after Member has come to the floor, Mr. Speaker, and told us about the debt and explained to us how the debt is going to increase under just the Republican version of the budget. Let us take a look at the Democrat version of the budget. Yes, it is true we increase the debt at a time when we are at war, at a time when we are at an economic disadvantage, at a time when we have had a national emergency. Do we ask to increase the debt? Yes, we do. We ask to increase the debt a little over $880 billion. Shocking amount of money, is it not? How much does the Democrats bill ask us, Mr. Speaker, to increase the debt? About the same amount of money. Oh, that is, of course, not going to be discussed here tonight because, of course, they only want to focus on the Republican plan. Well, we have got a plan and it is a good plan, and it deals with the priorities of America, protecting America, being fiscally responsible and getting the economy going again in creating jobs. But do not come to the floor and tell us about our big debt increase when you ask for more money, when your letters pile up at the Committee on Appropriations, and when your alternative Democrat plan raised the debt ceiling as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 191, I call up the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2004 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the conference report maintains the three principles of the budget resolution that was passed by the House of Representatives a few weeks back. We set forth three important principles that we felt were important as we considered the priorities for our Nation. Number one was protecting America. We felt that that was a nonnegotiable item both in terms of homeland security and national defense. We felt that, as we considered the budget for next year, we needed to ensure that the President's requests were met in order to not only protect our country at home, but also deal with challenges abroad. At the time we wrote the budget, we were not even sure exactly how the war against terrorism might be proceeding, let alone, at that time, the potential war against Iraq. Tonight, we stand at the possible threshold of a victory that we all celebrate and honor. We appreciate the service of our troops. But as we discuss the budget, we know that we need resources in order to fuel their force and their might around the world. This budget accomplishes that feat. The second principle was to strengthen the economy and great jobs. And I know there will be differences of opinion on this issue. Mr. Speaker, on the second principle of strengthening the economy and creating jobs, there is a difference of opinion, and that is very clear, between the minority and the majority. What we believe our budget accomplishes is an economic growth package, yes, smaller than the one that was originally written. We definitely get the entire growth package within this negotiation that the President requested. Probably nobody in this budget got everything they wanted, I can attest to that, but I can tell you that it sets up a debate and a process for us to consider some important legislation on growth, on tax simplification, on tax reform, to get the economy going and growing again. Now, we know from hearings and testimony of some very important and learned economists, including Alan Greenspan, it is going to take a little bit of push and shove from a fiscal standpoint in order to get the economy growing again. We accommodate this in the budget with an instruction to write a tax bill at $550 billion over the next 10 years. But do not kid anybody. Within the scope of the tax bills that have been passed for this country in the past, this is not a large tax bill. And we will discuss the specific policy at another time when the Committee on Ways and Means, following that instruction, brings the tax bill forward. The third important principle that we sought to achieve was fiscal responsibility, and in this regard what we tried to do is do two things. One is limit spending. The original bill, as Members will remember, that passed the House had what I would call some pretty bold attempts to not just go after the Committee on Appropriations and the appropriations bills that are on the floor for the next, hopefully, 3 months, 4 months, both in terms of the initial consideration, as well as their conference reports that we will haggle over, an amendment here and an amendment there, for a million here and a million there; and, yes, all of that does add up, while two-thirds of the budget in entitlement spending goes unchecked, unreformed, undiscussed in many respects, and, in fact, in many respects just added onto. We set up a process. That process has been rejected. That is fine. We live to fight another day. But within this budget that we say is for fiscal responsibility, we need to start that process. It is not just the duty of the Committee on Appropriations to look for savings within the budget. Friends from all of the authorizing committees, it is all of our duties to look for savings; waste, fraud and abuse are certainly part of it, but reforms to ensure that these entitlement programs work in the most beneficial and efficient way for the people that they are intended for. While no one can come to the floor tonight, although I heard during the rule debate quite a discussion about cuts here and cuts there, I do not know what you are discussing because there are no cuts in this budget when it comes to those mandatory programs; but we do set up a process to get the committees of jurisdiction to begin looking for that waste, fraud and abuse and to report back to the Committee on the Budget their findings. We also within here limit the growth of spending overall. Spending over the last 5 years in particular since we reached balance has been explosive, and even with that explosive spending, which has been added into the baseline, there are people who come here tonight who are suggesting we are not spending enough, and in fact, we may never ever spend enough. In fact, the letters to the Committee on Appropriations are already piling up for requests for additional spending. There were amendments in our committee, and there will be amendments in more committees for more and more and more spending. You may not do that and come to the floor here tonight and tell us that it is wrong for us to increase the debt ceiling. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 95, the conference report considered this evening.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to myself. Mr. Speaker, the war supplemental is in the budget that we are presenting. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.