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 2003 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 301 of House Concurrent Resolution 353, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House. This status report is current through July 11, 2002. 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 in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 353. 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 years after fiscal year 2003 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. 353 for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal years 2003 through 2007. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. A separate allocation for the Medicare program, as established under section 213(d) of the budget resolution, is shown for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal years 2003 through 2012. 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 2003 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also 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 fourth table gives the current level for 2004 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 301 of H. Con. Res. 353 printed in the Congressional Record on May 22, 2002. This list is needed to enforce section 301 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. DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--COMPARISON OF CURRENT LEVEL WITH AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5011, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003. It is the second bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations filed by the Appropriations Committee on June 24th. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 353, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003, which we subsequently deemed as having the effect of a conference report on the resolution. The budget resolution provided $393.8 billion in budget authority for national defense, including $10 billion for a war reserve fund. This bill funds the military construction and family housing portion of that commitment to our men and women in uniform. H.R. 5011 provides $10.1 billion in new budget authority and $10.1 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2003. It is therefore equal in budget authority and outlays to the 302(b) allocation to the House Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations. It does not contain emergency-designated new BA. It does include $50 million worth of rescissions of previously enacted BA and $3 million in related outlays. Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution. H.R. 5011 represents this House's solemn commitment to the quality of life of those who put their lives on the line every day for our freedom. It not only addresses the long-term infrastructure problems at military bases, it sustains barracks, family housing, medical facilities, and child support centers across the country and at bases overseas. It also provides infrastructure funding for National Guard and Reserve troops who now find themselves on the front lines of the war against terrorism. In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 5011.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5010, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This piece of legislation is perhaps the most important component of our wartime budget for America. It is the first bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations filed by the Appropriations Committee on June 24. I am happy to report that it is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 353, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2003, which we subsequently deemed as having the effect of a conference report on the resolution. The budget resolution provided $393.8 billion in budget authority for national defense, including $10 billion for a war reserve fund. This bill funds the bulk of that commitment. The rest is funded in separate military construction and energy and water appropriations bills. H.R. 5010 provides $354.446 billion in new discretionary budget authority, which is $1 million less than the 302(b) allocation to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Outlays of $345.328 billion are $782 million below the subcommittee's allocation. The bill contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, but does include $1.9 billion worth of BA savings including $945 million in Working Capital Revolving Fund reductions, $615 million in foreign currency savings and $195 million worth of rescissions of previously enacted BA. Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution. This bill represents the House's unwavering commitment to win the war against terrorism. But in addition to combating terrorism, H.R. 5010 follows the blueprint set forth in the resolution to give every service member a 4.1-percent pay raise, increased housing allowances, and incentive pay. Finally, section 201 of the budget resolution provided for a $10- billion reserve fund to continue military operations in fiscal year 2003. The Appropriations Committee has advised that it will deal with the war reserve fund when the Pentagon provides more budgetary detail about how it plans to spend the $10 billion. In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 5010 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, there is nobody in the House of Representatives with more integrity when it comes to numbers on the budget than the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I commend him for what he just said. Except there are a couple of things that he may have forgotten to mention and a couple of rest of the stories. First of all, it is true that the Democrats last year introduced a budget plan. Of course, they did not have a majority. They could not even get a majority of their own caucus to support the plan, but, yes, some of them did have a plan. If that plan would have been adopted, not only would we be into Social Security this year but we would also be standing here on the floor today knocking up against the debt ceiling. So you can say you had a plan and you can say that maybe your surplus projections may have been a little bit better, but do not tell us that you were not into Social Security and do not tell us that you were not knocking up against the debt ceiling. That is last year. Now let us talk about this year. There is no minority plan. There were a couple of members of the Blue Dog Caucus that came forward with our budget with a trigger. So they took our plan, and there is a plan called the House Budget, which we passed in the House and which we have now deemed and which the President has accepted and which we are operating under and which we passed two appropriation bills today and which we will also pass a prescription drug bill later, that is operating in the House of Representatives and is operating for this Federal Government. We have a plan. There is a challenge with regard to the plan, and I wish you would direct your attention to the other body which has nothing, no budget, no plan, no ideas on what to do. Yes, they rushed through a debt ceiling increase and put it over here and we will deal with it today, but when we talk about plans, you do have to at least smile a little bit, and I do see a few of you smiling, that you do not have a plan, and that is when we are talking about plans, the plan that is not there. But there are a few Members with integrity who are coming to the floor today and putting forward ideas, their ideas for increased spending. There is going to be a prescription drug benefit that is going to come forward from the Democrats a little bit later. It will be, and I think my colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means said earlier it was going to be somewhere in the $600 billion range. Folks, we are getting it scored; and my guess is it could be over a trillion dollars of new mandatory spending. Oh, but do not worry about that. Let us compartmentalize that. Because we are going to deal with the Republicans and the debt ceiling today, even though we do not have a plan. And then other thing that many Members with integrity come forward with, they say, you know what, that tax cut that we passed last year was too much, it was way too much, and so let us not do anything about that either except maybe roll it back. That is called a tax increase. So the plan is foggy, but we are starting to see what the minority side is starting to come up with. It is called higher taxes and more spending, higher taxes and more spending. Now tell me how that plan does not knock up against the debt ceiling? So I understand you can come to the floor today, and part of not governing means that you do not have to make a choice and you do not have to make a plan and that is fine. You get to have that luxury. But let us just recall history. For 40 years, this trillions of dollars that have been added to the debt were added to the debt by a Democratic-controlled Congress. It was only over the last 5 years that that debt has started to be reduced. By almost half a trillion dollars that debt was reduced. I think that is a pretty good track record. One other thing I would just mention, for those who predicted back in February that all this would happen. They have forgotten September 11. September 11 is why we are here. That is why we have to do this today. Let us vote to increase the debt limit and be responsible about the plan to get us back into fiscal responsibility.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to commit. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but recall the minority leader's comments when he said there was no collaboration, that there was no discussion, that there was no working together. I seem to remember a lot of working together, a lot of collaboration that got us to this point. I seem to remember a number of late-night meetings in September, when, in a bipartisan way, we decided to reach into that surplus, and there was not much left, but to reach into that surplus and take money and deal with the emergency. I seem to remember a bill that we voted on nearly unanimously to pay for a war against terrorism. Bipartisan. We reached in another time and did the same thing. I seem to remember a bill that came to the floor in a bipartisan way that said, you know what, that pre-attack recession has gotten worse and we need an economic stimulus. So let us reach in there again and let us make sure that we deal with the economy the way we did with the war and the way we did with the emergency. Now, all of a sudden, the minority leader rushes to the floor and says, gosh, there was no collaboration, no one talked to us, no one consulted us. Now we need a plan all of a sudden. We have had a plan: It is called deal with the circumstances that were dealt last September. That was our plan. And we did it together. We did it together. So tonight we have to do together what the other body did with the Senate Daschle bill, and that is to increase the debt limit to deal with the cards that we were dealt. Now, if my colleagues want a plan, present one, but do not come down here and blame the tax cuts without having the courage or the guts to give us a plan to raise those taxes back up again. And, no, I will not yield, because I am tired of my colleagues coming down here and demagogueing tax cuts and not having one ounce of guts to tell us their plan to increase those taxes back up. No, I will not yield, and I will not yield to Members who come in here and say, oh, gosh, but you are doing all the spending, when tonight my colleagues' bill on prescription drugs will be three times the bill that we offer on prescription drugs. The applause is there, but where is the guts to vote for the increase in the debt ceiling to pay for it? That is called tax and spend, and we have seen it before. We are not going to allow it again. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4954, the Medicare Modernization Prescription Drug Act. It is a good bill. It fits within a budget. It fits within a budget plan. We have got a budget. We have got a plan. It meets the needs of seniors. It meets the needs of health care providers. It meets the needs for the future. In 1965, Medicare should have included a prescription drug benefit. For many years after 1965, Democrats had the opportunity to propose legislation for a prescription drug benefit. In fact as early as 1993, they controlled the House, the other body and the House down the road here, and did not do a thing for seniors on prescription drugs; and now tonight they rush in, claim that we will not let them have the substitute when in fact their substitute costs almost a trillion dollars; and that is the reason they cannot have it, because it does not fit within a budget, and it does not fit within a plan. Mr. Speaker, just 3 hours ago they were screaming that we had to raise the debt ceiling because we were spending too much. Tonight they are claiming we are not spending enough. Vote for this bill. I rise in support of H.R. 4954, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug act of 2002. I'd like to congratulate the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce for producing a bill that provides a much-needed Medicare prescription drug benefit within a fiscally responsible framework. No senior should be forced to choose between the basic necessities of life and purchasing prescription drugs. This bill provides prescription drug coverage that is affordable, accessible, and completely voluntary. Because the Medicare program has not been significantly modernized since its inception in 1965 to include a prescription drug benefit, it is not meeting the needs of Iowa seniors. While the drug benefit is indeed important, Iowans recognize that the critical inequities in today's current Medicare program must also be addressed. While Iowa boasts the 8th highest quality of heathcare in the Nation, it is 50th in Medicare reimbursement. Actions that affect Medicare affect Iowa's entire health care system. If health care providers leave rural areas, who will write prescriptions under the new drug benefit? Who will provide the care that cannot be provided by drugs alone? If local hospitals close, where will we take our children for emergency care? Many of these problems have compounded since 1965, but rural health care, particularly in Iowa, is on the verge of a crisis. This bill offers significant progress toward bridging the gap between urban providers and those in rural States such as Iowa. As a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, I successfully amended this important legislation with Medicare's antiquated reimbursement policies in the current system in mind. My amendment is directed at the hospitals that need help the most, especially those in Iowa. It has been estimated that my amendment will provide $123 million over the years in much-needed relief for Iowa hospitals such as Covenant in Waterloo, Mercy in Dubuque, and Regional Medical Center in my hometown of Manchester. I am also pleased that this legislation includes an important provision recognizing the unique cost of physician work in rural areas. This provision would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services discretion to raise the minimum level of physician wages providing an increase of roughly $7 million to physicians in Iowa. After years of working to correct these inequities, I'm glad to see that the House of Representatives is following my lead in addressing these disparities in the current system. While this legislation is an important step forward, I will not stop working on this important issue. Today we are adding an unquestionably important prescription drug benefit to Medicare as well as beginning to reverse the years of unjust reimbursement formulas that have burdened Iowa's hospitals and physicians. We have listened to both seniors and health care professionals. The budgetary parameters for this bill were established in the Concurrent Resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 2003 (H. Con. Res 353), the budget resolution that the House passed in March and then deemed enforceable in the House last month. That budget made modernizing Medicare with, among other things, a prescription drug benefit and reforming Medicare among the highest priorities for the Congress--along with fighting the war on terrorism and encouraging economic recovery. The budget provides $5 billion in fiscal year 2003 and $350 billion over 10 years to strengthen Medicare and include a prescription drug benefit. That money was specifically fenced off from the rest of a budget in a reserve fund. This bill meets the requirements in the budget resolution and therefore I am releasing amounts in the reserve fund provided in the budget resolution to enable the House to consider the bill. Some have said that $350 billion is inadequate. The bottom line is that we made the maximum amount available for Medicare, given the state of the economy and the costs we face in the war against terrorism. Indeed, the bill provides almost twice the resources for Medicare reform as the President proposed in his budget for fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, critics of the bill failed to offer an alternative when the budget resolution was considered on the floor. And the other body has yet to even consider a budget resolution, despite the fact that they are required by law to do so by April 15. As modified by the rule, this bill is ``on budget'' and within the reserve fund level of $350 billion over 10 years. About $310 billion of the total is for the drug benefit, around $40 billion of additional assistance is provided to struggling medicare providers, and the rest is for various miscellaneous but important provisions such as regulatory reform. The modernization provisions in the bill include a Medicare+Choice competition program, regulatory reform, and the President's prescription drug discount card. I believe that modernization efforts like the Medicare Plus Choice competition program are necessary to help address Medicare's long-term financial liabilities. I would encourage future conferees on this bill to make further reforms to address Medicare's financial liabilities, should the other body act on this legislation and allow us to have a conference. In conclusion, this bill fulfills our commitment to enact a prescription drug benefit within Medicare that is affordable, and that is part of the overall effort to reform Medicare to make the program sustainable over the long term.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order against this motion, and I object to the unanimous consent request to dispense with the reading.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 202 of H. Con. Res. 353, the concurrent resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2003, I am submitting revisions to the 302(a) allocations to permit the consideration of H.R. 4954, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2002. Under section 231(d) of H. Con. Res. 353 a separate 302(a) allocation was established for legislation providing a prescription drug benefit, Medicare modernization, and various adjustments for the Medicare program. Section 202 of that resolution permits the chairman of the Budget Committee to increase this allocation for both budget authority and outlays by an amount not to exceed $5 billion in fiscal year 2003 and $350 billion over 10 years for such legislation. H.R. 4954 establishes a prescription drug benefit in Medicare, adjust certain payments under Medicare, and modernizes Medicare through a Medicare+Choice Competition Program, regulatory reform and a prescription drug discount card. As reported by the Committee on Ways and Means and modified by H. Res. 465, the bill would provide for the Medicare policies delineated in section 202, $4.650 billion in new budget authority and $4.575 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2003. For the 10-year period of 2003 through 2012, this bill would provide $347.270 billion in new budget authority and outlays for such policies. Accordingly, I am revising the 302(a) allocation for Medicare policies for fiscal year 2003 by $4.650 billion in new budget authority and $4.575 billion in outlays and, for the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2012, by $347.270 billion in new budget authority and outlays. Pursuant to section 202 of H. Con. Res. 353, the concurrent resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2003, I have adjusted the 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for Medicare (as printed in the Congressional Record on May 22, 2002) by $4.650 billion in additional budget authority for fiscal year 2003 and by $347.270 billion in additional budget authority for the period of 2003 through 2012. Under the special rule set forth in section 231(d) of H. Con. Res. 353, the applicable allocation for H.R. 4954 is the 302(a) allocation for Medicare for fiscal year 2003 and for the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2012 that was printed in the Congressional Record on May 22, 2002. As reported by the Committee on Ways and Means and modified by H. Res. 465, the bill provides $4.650 billion in new budget authority in fiscal year 2003 and $347.270 billion for the period of 2003 through 2012 for the purposes specified in section 202 of H. Con. Res. 353. Hence, the amount of new budget authority related to the Medicare policies set forth in section 202 is equal to the adjusted 302(a) allocation for the applicable periods. If no further adjustments are made to this allocation, any amendment that would provide any additional new budget authority for Medicare, relative to the bill as amended by the rule, in fiscal year 2003 or for the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2012 would exceed the 302(a) allocation in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits the consideration of amendments that, if enacted, would exceed the appropriate allocation of budget authority made pursuant to section 302(a) for the first year and the total of all fiscal years covered by the applicable budget resolution. In addition, the bill provides $0.380 billion in new budget authority in fiscal year 2003 and $1.380 billion over the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007 that is unrelated to the Medicare policies delineated in section 202. Such spending is therefore subject to the general purpose allocation of the Committee on Ways and Means. Any amendment making changes unrelated to the Medicare policies delineated in section 202 that provides in excess of $1.823 billion in new budget authority in fiscal year 2003 or $6.475 billion for the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007 would also exceed the appropriate 302(a) allocation in violation of Section 302(f). This statement is issued in accordance with section 312(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of this resolution commending the patriotic contributions of the roofing professionals who replaced the section of the Pentagon's slate roof destroyed by terrorists on September 11, 2001. The sight of the smoke rising from the Pentagon that day was a vision caused by evil that I will never forget. Since that time, many Americans have acted with hope and good will and without hesitation to help our Nation move forward from a time and place of tragedy. Ken and Jared Schmitt of Rafoth, Inc. in Dubuque, Iowa offered their time and talents to make a difference. Ken and Jared were among the roofing professionals who volunteered to help repair more than an acre of the Pentagon's slate roof. I had the honor of meeting with them during their stay in the Washington area. Roofing professionals across the country donated approximately $450,000 worth of labor and materials to the replacement effort at no cost to the Federal Government. This resolution offers an opportunity for us to say thank you to those who did this work out of their sense of duty and generosity. Ken and Jared deserve America's gratitude and respect. There is no question that they have mine.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my voice of support for House Joint Resolution 95, designating an official flag for the Medal of Honor. Since the Civil War, American soldiers who distinguish themselves in defense of our nation have been honored with the Medal of Honor. In fact, it was at the suggestion of Iowa Senator James Grimes, in 1861, that the Medal of Honor was created. All members of our armed forces are patriots, but the 3,458 soldiers who have received this honor have gone far above and beyond the call of duty. In defense of our nation, they have risked or given up their lives, so that so many can live freely as Americans. In this time of war, as the veterans of the future selflessly defend American freedom and values in the far corners of the world, it is appropriate to move a step further to designate a special flag for Medal of Honor recipients. Its simplicity--thirteen white stars on a blue field, just like the medal it accompanies--allows us all to remember the tremendous cost that a small number of soldiers have paid to ensure our freedom. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to Section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, Section 221 of H. Con. Res. 83, and Section 231 of H. Con. Res. 353, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates established by the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2003, and Section 221 of H. Con. Res. 83. As passed by the House, H.R. 4775, a bill making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2002, includes emergency-designated appropriations. The fiscal year 2002 allocations to the Appropriations Committee were previously increased by $29,432,000,000 in new budget authority and $8,466,000,000 in outlays to reflect the amounts in the House-reported bill. I am adjusting the budgetary aggregates and the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations for the difference between the House-reported and House-passed measures. This adjustment equals--$5,000,000 in new budget authority. (There was no change in outlays.) Accordingly, the 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2002 for the House Committee on Appropriations becomes $735,427,000,000 in new budget authority and $736,420,000,000 in outlays. The budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2002 become $1,708,599,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,653,073,000,000 in outlays. Outlays flowing from fiscal year 2002 emergency appropriations increase the 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2003 outlays. Under the procedures set forth in section 314 of the Budget Act, adjustments may be made for emergency-designated budget authority through fiscal year 2002 and for the outlays flowing from such budget authority in all fiscal years. The outlays flowing in fiscal year 2003 from H.R. 4775, as passed by the House, total $10,715,000,000. The 302(a) allocation for outlays to the House Committee on Appropriations and the budgetary aggregate for outlays are increased by this amount. Accordingly, the 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2003 for the House Committee on Appropriations becomes $748,096,000,000 in new budget authority and $785,190,000,000 in outlays. The budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2003 becomes $1,784,073,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,767,146,000,000 in outlays. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski at 6-7270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 13, 2002, my vote was not recorded on rollcall vote No. 226. Had my vote been recorded, it would have been in the following manner: Rollcall vote No. 226--H. Res. 440 providing for the consideration of H.R. 4019--``aye.''

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I just have to report to the Congress what I just got. I just found out that the next motion to instruct, which is going to be on the supplemental offered by the Democrats, is going to be to accept the higher spending level between the House and the Senate.

Mr. NUSSLE. I do not have any time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, what is probably most humorous about the last statement on the floor is that the Democrats do not want to take credit when it is going up or when it is coming down. In fact, this year the Democrats presented no plan, no budget, no ideas, no answers, no solutions, nothing. Not on energy, not on Medicare, not on agriculture, not on Social Security, not on anything that is addressing the needs of this Nation. Not on homeland security, not on defense, not on intelligence. None of those things were presented in a budget this year. Let us just review the bidding of how we got here. Last year, not this year, last year the Republicans, together with the President, introduced a budget that said energy needs to be a priority. When you are 60 percent dependent on foreign fossil fuels for the energy of your nation, you have got a problem. People come to my town meetings and they wonder sometimes a little bit about why we are entangled in the Middle East. Wake up, America. There is your reason. We have not had a long-term energy strategy. We have allowed it to deplete over time. The last 8 years have certainly been no friend to energy. And so, yes, of course, we find ourselves with that as a necessary priority. It has impacted our economy, it has impacted the creation of jobs. So last year we put into the budget to have an energy strategy, and last year in August we passed this bill in order to address it within the, fit within budget, fit within surpluses as far as the eye could see, and we managed the problem. Now today Democrats are running to the floor saying, ``My God, what happened? Where is the surplus? Where did it go? Why are we in deficits?'' Well, there is a little incident that occurred September 11, you may have remembered that, I realize you discount it now, but pretty significant, in which in a bipartisan way, thankfully, Republicans and Democrats reached into that surplus, and they took out money for the emergency, they took out money for homeland security, we took out money to fund the war, and we took out money to stimulate an economy that was already in doldrums, that went into the doldrums even further as a result of that attack, and we did that in a bipartisan way. And now, 7 months later, you wander to the floor and say where is the surplus? We spent it, folks. We spent it, appropriately so, on the needs of this country. So we had an energy bill that fit within the budget, and we appropriately spent the surplus and did whatever it took in order to address what happened in September. Now you wander to the floor and say where is the surplus? Why are we in deficit? Well, addressing that deficit, we passed yet another budget plan this year and we said we can get back out of deficits if we control spending. We can have an energy plan, we can address the needs of homeland security, we can win the war, we can stimulate the economy. Yes, we will be in deficit, but it will be periodic and we are able to get back out of it if we can control spending. So the gentleman from Massachusetts comes to the floor here and he says, where are the choices? Where is the sacrifice? We have a plan that shows you where the choices are. Where is your plan? You do not have one. The very distinguished gentleman from Texas presented a plan. His plan was our plan, with a trigger. We do not agree with the trigger. We will agree to disagree. But the interesting thing is the only plan you presented was our plan. The Senate, excuse me, the other body, cannot even pass a budget. And you wander in here and you say where are the choices? Mr. Speaker, wake up. We are going to accept this motion to instruct conferees. But how did we get here? Remember back to what happened in September. Do not demagogue Social Security. Obviously for political purposes you can go ahead and do that, but we need this energy strategy to get our economy going, to become less dependent and less entangled in the Middle East. It fits within the budget. It responsibly allows us to win the war and get the economy going. We need to pass this bill and get it through conference.

Mr. NUSSLE. Now, where is that money going to come from, I ask my colleagues. Not $27 billion; they want the other body's version of $31 billion. Where is that coming from? Is it coming from Social Security? Why are you not down here demagoguing that?

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates established by H. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002. My authority to make these adjustments is derived from Sec. 314 of the Congressional Budget Act and Sec. 221(c) of H. Con. Res. 83. As reported to the House, H.R. 4775, a bill making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2002, includes emergency-designated appropriations. The total amount of emergency-designated appropriations included in the reported bill is $29,432,000,000. Outlays flowing from those appropriations total $8,466,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. Under the provisions of both the Budget Act and the budget resolution, I must adjust the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates upon the reporting of a bill containing emergency appropriations. Accordingly, I hereby increase the 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2002 to the House Committee on Appropriations to $735,432,000,000 in new budget authority and $736,420,000,000 in outlays. I also increase the budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2002 to $1,708,604,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,653,073,000,000 in outlays. Section 2 of House Resolution 428 provided that House Concurrent Resolution 353, as adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the House as though Congress has adopted a concurrent resolution on the budget. That section also directed me to submit for printing in the Congressional Record: (1) allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 under a concurrent resolution on the budget; (2) accounts identified for advance appropriations, referred to in section 301(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 353; and (3) an estimated unified surplus, referred to in section 211 of such concurrent resolution. The attached tables, which I submit for printing in the Congressional Record as directed, provide the required information. Allocations of Spending Authority to House Committees: Appropriations Committee, 2003 [In millions of dollars] General Purpose: \1\

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This important piece of legislation is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 353, the House-passed budget resolution. On March 20, this body passed a budget resolution that made available the budgetary resources for the largest increase in defense spending in two decades. We provided $393.8 billion in budget authority for national defense, including $10 billion for the expected war costs. The principal reason for that increase, of course, was our unwavering commitment to win the war against terrorism. But in addition to combating terrorism, we provided a blueprint in the resolution to give every service member a 4.1-percent pay rise, increased housing allowances, and increased incentive pay. Also, and I believe this deserves particularly to be noted, under Republican leadership we kept our promises to America' veterans: For the first time in decades we broke the legislative logjam over concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans disability compensation. The budget resolution provided the resources to phase in full concurrent receipt for retirees with 60 percent or greater VA disabilities. I am happy to say that the defense authorization bill under consideration today is completely consistent with the approach we took on concurrent receipt in the budget resolution. Finally, section 201 of the budget resolution provided for a $10- billion reserve fund to continue military operations in fiscal year 2003. I am advised that the Armed Services Committee has opted to deal with that subject matter later in a separate bill, H.R. 4547, when the Pentagon provides more budgetary detail about how it plans to spend the $10 billion. I close in noting that the House Budget Committee completed its work on schedule and provided a framework for timely consideration of the vital bill on the floor today. But as we all know, the other body still has not passed a budget resolution for fiscal year 2003. Given the other body's glacial slowness in doing the public's business, it is all the more important that the House show leadership and pass a resolution deeming the provisions of H. Con. Res. 353 to be in force. I express my support for H.R. 4546.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, no farm bill is perfect, but this conference report deserves our support. I will support it.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, as I've traveled across Northeast Iowa and listened to members of the agricultural community over the last few years, the shape and the content of the new farm bill has been the centerpiece of our discussions. I've heard from many farmers about the challenges they face, their preferences for this legislation and their hopes for a quick resolution. I voted for the original Freedom to Farm legislation in 1996. Freedom to Farm was working until the United States fell prey to a trade war, a currency collapse and substantially subsidized overproduction in South America. Accordingly, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I constructed the fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 budgets to set aside necessary funding. I did this so Congress could write a new farm program as soon as possible to meet these challenges farmers have faced since the implementation of Freedom to Farm. As Chairman of the Budget committee, I am pleased that the conference agreement fits within the amounts assumed for reauthorization of a farm bill within the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. Our budget resolution accommodated these amounts by establishing a 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Agriculture for fiscal year 2002 that could be used at the committee's discretion for emergency relief or reauthorization of a farm bill. It set aside the rest in a reserve fund that can only be used for reauthorization of the farm bill. Our budget resolution also allocated $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002 and $73.5 billion over the period of fiscal years 2002 to 2011. According to the Congressional Budget Act, bills may not exceed the appropriate levels in the budget resolution. This conference agreement meets this standard. Chairman Combest, Ranking Member Stenholm, and their staffs have worked hard to ensure that this bill complies within the Budget Committee guidelines and I recommend them for this. Farmers needed and deserved a farm bill last year to adequately prepare for 2002 crops. I believe allowing this debate to go so long was irresponsible and unsympathetic to the challenges Iowa's farmers face each crop year. I am extremely disappointed that the final conference agreement failed to include a ban on packer ownership of livestock. Because I realized how critical it is for Iowa's livestock producers, I introduced separate legislation on this issue in February. The leaders of the conference committee promised to continue investigating packer ownership of livestock and its effects on producers. I plan to remind them of that promise and will pursue every avenue remaining to find a solution. My second major concern about the conference agreement is that it fails to address payment limitations in a meaningful manner. I fear the lack of these two provisions will drive more family farmers in Iowa to experience the harmful effects of consolidation in the marketplace. I am also concerned about the new Conservation Security Program included in the final bill. As a new, unproven entitlement program, it potentially takes dollars away from conservation programs that have proven successful in the past such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). We will need to closely monitor the effects of this initiative. While the conference agreement is clearly far from perfect, I believe there are numerous strengths that must be considered as well. The overall package placed before us today is an improvement over the status quo when it comes to the support and safety net the Iowa farmers have requested. That is precisely what I provided funding in my budget to accomplish, and that is why I voted to approve the conference report. Overall, the new farm bill provides necessary stability for agriculture by maintaining planting flexibility and implementing counter-cyclical payments to help farmers deal with poor weather conditions and unfavorable market conditions. I am very pleased that his legislation includes much needed funds for rural development including rural business investment, emergency personnel and firefighters and high speed internet access for rural areas. This legislation also includes important provisions for the improvement of trade for Iowa's farmers. The legislation includes funding for the Market Assistance Program as well as the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program. I am also pleased that this legislation include a National Dairy Program intended to help all dairy producers and significantly increases conservation programs, an 80 percent increase over Freedom to Farm. While a new farm program is indeed the centerpiece for a prosperous future for Iowa's farmers, further action is still necessary to ensure a strong and healthy agricultural economy. We must continue to press for better trade agreements, including the approval of Trade Promotion Authority for the President. Agriculture also deserves improved treatment under the tax code. Opportunities also exist to benefit farmers in pending energy legislation and regulatory relief. While one size will never fit all when it comes to agricultural legislation, the Farm Security Act provides the support and safety net that Iowa farmers have asked for. As such, I vote to approve the Farm Security Act.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates established by H. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002. My authority to make these adjustments is derived from Sec. 314 of the Congressional Budget Act and Sec. 221(c) of H. Con. Res. 83. H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-147), contained emergency-designated direct spending. The emergency-designated direct spending increases the 302(a) allocation to the House Ways and Means Committee and the budgetary aggregates by $5,984,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,755,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002 and $5,464,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,675,000,000 in outlays for the total of fiscal years 2002 through 2006. Those adjustments increase the 302(a) allocation to the House Ways and Means Committee to $7,344,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,655,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002 and $20,873,000,000 in new budget authority and $20,744,000,000 in outlays for the total of fiscal years 2002 through 2006. The budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2002 are increased to $1,679,172,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,644,607,000,000 in outlays. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski at 67270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, that is the truth? Those are the facts? Okay, let us say it is the truth. Let us say it is the facts. Where is their plan? We have been asking for their plan for now going on over 6 months. Where is their plan? Where is their plan on terrorism? Where is their plan on defending this Nation? Where is their plan on special education? Where is their plan on prescription drugs? Where is their plan on Medicare? Where is their plan on Social Security? Where, where, where in the name of God is their budget? They do not have a budget; the Senate does not have a budget. The only plan for the American people to look at is the plan that was passed here in the House of Representatives by the President of the United States and the House Republicans. Why is that? Because they are devoid of ideas, they are unable to act, and they are unwilling to lead; therefore, we must. Now, this is a new phenomenon. The great Democratic Party that led us many times in our history is disappointing America with absolutely not one scintilla of an idea. So what do we have to do? We have to move forward. We want to do it in a bipartisan way. I mean, translate this debate for us today. The Democrats are coming to the well and they are wringing their hands and saying, oh, my goodness, I am worried about the budget in 2020. That is what I am worried about, the budget in 2020. We are worried about the family budget today. It is not the Federal budget. Wake up. It is America's family budget that matters. The Republicans are the ones who have paid down the debt, $450 billion. Yet, they come to the well and say, we are worried about the debt in 2020? Well, do something about it. Give us their plan, give us their budget, give us their ideas. Do not just come down here and scare America's seniors and wring their hands about an economy they are unwilling to do anything about, but join us. Join us in recognizing that last year, because of some quirky Senate rules, they were unable and unwilling to do more than 10 years. Alan Greenspan said yesterday, ``The markets of America assumed this tax cut is permanent.'' Certainly, my constituents believe that when we pass a bill and pass a law, it means it is permanent until Congress is willing to change it. The reason they are scared of this debate is simple: Because automatically, 10 years from today, do Members want to know what they are up to? They want the tax increase on America, but they do not want to have to vote for it. No, they do not want to have to show their plan, they do not want to have to show their budget, they just want it to automatically happen. Have the guts to have a plan, have the guts to have a budget, have the guts to come to the floor and tell America what Democrats are all about. Do not just accuse us of doing nothing, of wrecking the economy, of dipping into Social Security, which we all know is impossible. Do not do that unless they have got a plan on what to do about it, and America will wake up to that fact as soon as we have the opportunity to get this story out. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share some good news about a well- deserved award bestowed recently upon Cedar Falls, Iowa. The National Trust for Historic Preservation rightfully chose Cedar Falls to receive a 2002 Great American Main Street Award. The award recognizes America's best efforts in historic preservation-based commercial district revitalization. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has seen first hand what this community has accomplished on behalf of its citizens, let me assure you that this honor is wholly deserved. Like many American communities, Cedar Falls experienced a loss of jobs during the 1980s. By 1987, Cedar Falls' historic business district was in trouble and nearly vacant. Although committed to their downtown business district, the community struggled with a long-term revitalization plan. Today, only two storefronts are empty. Today, downtown Cedar Falls is an attractive, vibrant place to work and visit. The Cedar Falls Community Main Street program helped bring the community back to life. The program supported inter-agency partnerships and the lead economic development partner in the community. Due to the dedication of the Cedar Falls Community Main Street downtown development group over the last 15 years, the area has seen a net gain of 237 new jobs, 306 building renovations or improvements, with $8.2 million in private funds invested in rehabilitation and another $5.6 million in property acquisition. The group includes downtown merchants, lifelong residents, and newcomers who have discovered the newly preserved and revitalized community. I offer my sincere congratulations on this award to the Cedar Falls residents who had the vision and dedication to make such a dramatic difference in their community.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act. This legislation takes a common sense approach to reduce nutrient and sediment loss in the Upper Mississippi watershed by coordinating existing public and private water monitoring initiatives. I believe that such a partnership promotes the river's health and is beneficial the communities and people of eastern Iowa. Most of the farm families I represent live and make their living either along the Mississippi, or its many tributaries. Soil erosion is a problem for farmers by reducing long-term sustainability and income potential of their acres. It is my understanding that farmers in the Upper Mississippi River Basin lose more than $300 million annually in applied nitrogen to soil erosion. In addition, sediment fills the main shipping channel of the Mississippi that family farmers depend on to get their commodities to markets. Farmers live close to the land, and are committed to being good stewards. This legislation helps farmers and local conservation groups assess where problems are occurring in their watershed, and how to efficiently and effectively solve the problem. I believe this legislation is beneficial in mending our environment along the river, and better protecting it in the future. Sediment is a threat to the Mississippi's fish, birds, and other wildlife by filling wetlands. Sediment reduces wetlands'ability to be an adequate water filter and provide habitat to the creatures that live all along the Mississippi River. It is estimated that the Upper Mississippi contributes 31 percent of the nitrogen that impairs the water quality of the Lower Mississippi basin. Part of the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge is in my district. I believe this refuge is an important treasure for Iowa. What makes this area special is, of course, the unique wildlife that lives there. This legislation helps promote wildlife by monitoring and computer modeling data to ensure scientifically sound and cost-effective decisions in promoting water quality. Additionally, a healthy Mississippi River is very important to the communities of eastern Iowa. The Mississippi is recognized throughout the United States and abroad as ``America's River''. The Quad Cities area is a popular destination of international travelers who want to see and touch the water. For the residents of the Quad Cities area, the riverfront is the center of social life, with a historic district, baseball diamond, and several annually held festivals. The city of Dubuque boasts over one million visitors thanks to the Mississippi. This community has chosen to make its story of the river the cornerstone of its urban renewal with a million dollar investment in the revitalization of the riverfront. The America's River project and historic Port of Dubuque represent the community's dedication to growing its tourism industry. Mr. Speaker, the Upper Mississippi's health and water quality essential to growing the economies of the larger river cities of Bettendorf, Davenport, Clinton, and Dubuque, and the picturesque river towns of Guttenberg, LeClair, Bellevue, and Marquette. All of these communities, along with farmers and conservationists, have invested much time and effort in promoting a clean river. I believe this legislation helps to insure these investments by coordinating the many interests of those living in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Accordingly, I am a proud sponsor of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. The Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Resolution Section-By-Section Report language (Report 107-376) which further explains Section 202(b) of H. Con. Res. 353 (i.e., the application of the reserve fund for Medicare modernization and prescription drugs) is meant only as an illustrative example.