Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 45 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 45 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2171-H2226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H2171]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

House of Representatives

{time} 1715
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004--Continued

Here it is, very carefully worked out, using established models. In
fact, Macroeconomic Advisors are retained by the CEA. We beat them two
to one for one sixth of the cost in job generation and GDP growth.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). All time for general debate on
the resolution has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution shall be considered
for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in part A
of House Report 108-44 is adopted and the concurrent resolution, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of House Concurrent Resolution 95, as amended pursuant to
House Resolution 151, is as follows:

H. Con. Res. 95

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2004.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 is hereby
established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013 are hereby set forth.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

Subtitle A--Reserve Funds for Legislation Assumed in Budget Aggregates

Sec. 301. Reserve fund for medicare modernization and prescription
drugs.
Sec. 302. Reserve fund for medicaid.
Sec. 303. Reserve fund for bioshield.

Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure for Legislation Not Assumed in Budget
Aggregates

Sec. 311. Contingency procedure for surface transportation.

Subtitle C--Implementation

Sec. 321. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Restrictions on advance appropriations in the
House.Enforcement Act of 1990.
Sec. 402. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2003 through 2013:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $1,323,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,350,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,519,267,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,662,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,793,142,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,902,740,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,017,385,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,130,867,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,235,796,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,364,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,502,635,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be reduced are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $36,105,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $116,232,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $97,759,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $77,943,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $60,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $60,237,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $60,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $62,175,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $191,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $285,353,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $301,575,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $1,790,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,838,519,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,952,639,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,076,319,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,177,306,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,282,248,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,383,491,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,481,237,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,597,191,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,704,406,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,832,479,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $1,776,895,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,847,887,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,943,164,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,045,680,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,139,077,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,244,487,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,350,662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,451,698,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,574,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,667,177,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,803,936,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $453,166,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $497,749,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $423,897,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $382,951,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $345,935,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $341,747,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $333,277,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $320,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $338,585,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $302,751,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $301,301,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $6,687,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $7,264,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $7,794,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $8,302,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $8,777,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,251,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $9,719,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,179,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $10,660,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,112,000,000,000.

[[Page H2172]]

Fiscal year 2013: $11,564,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $3,858,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $4,179,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,416,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $4,597,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $4,720,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $4,819,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $4,889,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $4,926,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $4,963,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $4,949,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $4,918,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2003 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $392,494,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $386,229,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $400,546,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $400,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $420,071,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,237,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $440,185,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,011,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $460,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $438,656,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $480,886,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $462,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $494,067,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $480,650,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $507,840,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $497,348,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $522,103,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $516,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $536,531,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $523,884,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $551,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $543,541,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $22,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $24,750,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,654,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $28,631,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,090,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $31,090,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $32,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,344,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $33,120,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,303,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $33,775,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,284,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $34,466,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,078,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,315,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,148,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $37,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,576,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $23,153,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,556,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $22,771,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,348,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $23,591,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,082,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $24,344,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,690,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $25,153,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,425,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $25,899,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,127,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $26,504,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,799,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $27,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $27,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,079,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $28,464,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $29,134,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,393,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $2,074,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $439,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $2,583,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $928,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $2,707,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $961,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $2,609,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,244,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,431,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,022,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $2,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,977,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,660,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $3,085,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,781,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $3,181,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,955,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $3,288,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $3,401,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,293,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $30,816,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,940,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $29,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,868,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $30,253,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,276,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $30,945,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,203,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $31,453,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,335,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,230,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $33,463,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,843,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $34,432,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,768,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,438,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,752,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,354,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,626,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $37,251,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $24,418,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $24,192,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,363,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $26,481,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,205,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $26,197,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $25,567,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,430,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $24,607,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,543,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,998,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $24,293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,526,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $23,781,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,030,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $23,390,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,654,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $23,155,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,413,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $8,812,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,881,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $7,405,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,494,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $8,637,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,957,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $8,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,965,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $9,171,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $8,635,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $8,774,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $8,750,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,545,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $8,952,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,141,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,042,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $828,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $9,259,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,056,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $64,091,000,000.

[[Page H2173]]

(B) Outlays, $67,847,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $65,430,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,225,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $65,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,917,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $66,718,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,538,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $67,726,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $68,692,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,297,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $69,881,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,552,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $71,084,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,915,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $72,789,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,410,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $74,498,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $76,283,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,640,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12,251,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,994,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $14,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,923,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $14,356,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,991,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $14,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,119,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $14,968,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $15,351,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $15,702,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,803,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $16,076,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,146,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $16,468,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,524,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $16,858,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,892,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $17,256,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,288,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $86,169,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,340,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $84,748,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,706,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $84,381,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,598,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $86,670,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,639,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $88,650,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,417,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $90,811,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $88,355,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $92,393,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $93,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,170,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $95,832,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,936,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $97,635,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $99,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,602,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $221,878,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $218,021,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $235,103,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $235,479,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $248,663,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,358,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $265,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $264,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $284,237,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $283,363,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $303,780,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $302,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $324,153,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $322,870,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $345,696,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $344,412,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $370,681,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $369,399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $395,391,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,133,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $423,754,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $422,447,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $248,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,434,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $266,538,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $266,865,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $282,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $285,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $322,237,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $319,017,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $344,656,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $344,943,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $370,545,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $370,436,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $396,931,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $396,685,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $424,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $425,263,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $452,618,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $455,994,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $489,873,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $486,064,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $528,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $528,861,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $326,588,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $334,373,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $315,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $321,120,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $325,921,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $329,359,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $331,772,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $334,216,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $336,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $338,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $344,748,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $345,993,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $352,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $353,901,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $360,370,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $361,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $374,372,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $375,115,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $377,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $378,358,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $391,496,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $392,351,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $13,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $14,223,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $16,451,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,451,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $17,975,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,975,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,827,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,827,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,982,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $24,357,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,357,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $28,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $31,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,450,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $34,481,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,481,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $57,597,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $61,567,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,119,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $65,847,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,632,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $64,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,830,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $62,348,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,074,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $65,696,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $66,939,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $68,222,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,938,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $72,714,000,000.

[[Page H2174]]

(B) Outlays, $72,418,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $69,867,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,477,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $74,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,198,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $38,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,712,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $37,313,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,898,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $37,676,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,007,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $37,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,030,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $37,966,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,862,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $38,884,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,639,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $39,846,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $40,891,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,703,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $42,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,855,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $43,459,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,131,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $44,808,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,471,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $18,178,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $19,779,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,597,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $20,038,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,226,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $19,672,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,731,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $19,976,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,737,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,789,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $20,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,620,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,175,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,342,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,874,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $22,090,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,751,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,881,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,374,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $239,741,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $239,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $256,670,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $256,670,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $303,916,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $303,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $342,042,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,042,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $367,472,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $367,472,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $389,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $389,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $410,519,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $410,519,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $429,676,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $429,676,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $450,251,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $450,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $471,470,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $471,470,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $489,580,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $489,580,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,067,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$292,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$93,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$36,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$15,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$41,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$41,104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$42,894,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$42,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,598,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,598,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,459,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,459,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$51,535,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$51,535,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$53,540,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$53,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,609,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,685,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,685,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$56,841,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$56,841,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$59,025,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,025,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$61,229,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$61,229,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

[[Page H2175]]

House a reconciliation bill carrying out all such
recommendations without any substantive revision.
(3) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on
Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $600,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $5,532,000,000 in outlays for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $18,618,000,000 in
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
level of direct spending for that committee by $261,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $2,596,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and
$9,421,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004
through 2013.
(C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $2,397,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $25,265,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $107,359,000,000 in
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(D) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee
on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $62,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $678,000,000 in outlays for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $2,864,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(E) Committee on government reform.--The House Committee on
Government Reform shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $1,072,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $10,371,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $38,319,000,000 in
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013. For
the purposes of this subparagraph and section 310 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, a reduction in outlays
submitted pursuant to this subparagraph that results from
changes in programs within the jurisdiction of other
committees shall count as a reduction in outlays for the
Committee on Government Reform.
(F) Committee on house administration.--The House Committee
on House Administration shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $4,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $26,000,000 in outlays for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $88,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(G) Committee on international relations.--The House
Committee on International Relations shall report changes in
laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level
of direct spending for that committee by $157,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 2004, $1,293,000,000 in outlays for
the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and
$4,468,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004
through 2013.
(H) Committee on the Judiciary.--The House Committee on the
Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $86,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $727,000,000 in outlays for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $2,404,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(I) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on
Resources shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $40,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $345,000,000 in outlays for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $1,105,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(J) Committee on science.--The House Committee on Science
shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that
committee by $1,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004,
$6,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004
through 2008, and $15,000,000 in outlays for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(K) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to
reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by
$114,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $1,099,000,000
in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008,
and $3,702,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2004 through 2013.
(L) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $449,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $4,221,000,000 in outlays for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $14,626,000,000 in
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(M) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $1,971,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $17,704,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $61,547,000,000 in
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

Subtitle A--Reserve Funds for Legislation Assumed in Budget Aggregates

SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE MODERNIZATION AND
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

(a) In General.--In the House, if the Committee on Ways and
Means or the Committee on Energy and Commerce reports a bill
or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or
a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides a
prescription drug benefit and modernizes medicare, and
provides adjustments to the medicare program on a fee-for-
service, capitated, or other basis, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may revise the appropriate committee
allocations described in subsection (c) for such committees
and other appropriate levels in this resolution by the amount
provided by that measure for that purpose, but not to exceed
$7,500,000,000 in new budget authority and $7,500,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 2004 and $400,000,000,000 in new
budget authority and $400,000,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(b) Application.--After the consideration of any measure
for which an adjustment is made pursuant to subsection (a),
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make any
further appropriate adjustments in allocations and budget
aggregates.
(c) Special Rule.--In the House, there shall be a separate
section 302(a) allocation to the appropriate committees for
medicare. For purposes of enforcing such separate allocation
under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
the ``first fiscal year'' and the ``total of fiscal years''
shall be deemed to refer to fiscal year 2004 and the total of
fiscal years 2004 through 2013 included in the joint
explanatory statement of managers accompanying this
resolution, respectively. Such separate allocation shall be
the exclusive allocation for medicare under section 302(a) of
such Act.

SEC. 302. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICAID.

In the House, if the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment
thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is
submitted, that--
(1) modernizes medicaid and the State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP), and
(2) reduces new budget authority and outlays flowing
therefrom by $9,010,000,000 for fiscal years 2009 through
2013,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may increase
allocations of new budget authority and outlays for that
committee (and make other appropriate changes in budgetary
aggregates) by the amount provided by that measure for that
purpose, but not to exceed $3,258,000,000 in new budget
authority and outlays for fiscal year 2004 and $8,944,000,000
in new budget authority and outlays for the period of fiscal
years 2004 through 2008.

SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR BIOSHIELD.

In the House, if the appropriate committee of jurisdiction
reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment
thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is
submitted, that establishes a program to accelerate the
research, development, and purchase of biomedical threat
countermeasures and--
(1) such measure provides new budget authority to carry out
such program; or
(2) such measure authorizes discretionary new budget
authority to carry out such program and the Committee on
Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution that
provides new budget authority to carry out such program,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations for the committee providing such new budget
authority, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
by the amount provided for that purpose, but, in the case of
a measure described in paragraph (1), not to exceed
$890,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2004 and
outlays flowing therefrom and $3,418,000,000 in new budget
authority for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008
and outlays flowing therefrom or, in the case of a measure
described in paragraph (2), not to exceed $890,000,000 in new
budget authority for fiscal year 2004 and outlays flowing
therefrom. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the total
such revision for fiscal year 2004 may not exceed
$890,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays flowing
therefrom.

Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure for Legislation Not Assumed in Budget
Aggregates

SEC. 311. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

(a) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.--In the
House, if the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment
thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is
submitted, that provides new budget authority for the budget
accounts or portions thereof in the highway and transit
categories as defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in
excess of the following amounts:
(1) for fiscal year 2004: $39,135,000,000,
(2) for fiscal year 2005: $39,786,000,000,
(3) for fiscal year 2006: $40,502,000,000,
(4) for fiscal year 2007: $41,219,000,000, or
(5) for fiscal year 2008: $42,002,000,000,

[[Page H2176]]

the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the
appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of
new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2004
and for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to the
extent such excess is offset by a reduction in mandatory
outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or an increase in
receipts appropriated to such fund for the applicable fiscal
year caused by such legislation or any previously enacted
legislation.
(b) Adjustment for Outlays.--In the House, if a bill or
joint resolution is reported, or if an amendment thereto is
offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that
changes obligation limitations such that the total
limitations are in excess of $38,496,000,000 for fiscal year
2004, for programs, projects, and activities within the
highway and transit categories as defined in sections
250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 and if legislation has been
enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in subsection
(a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget may increase the allocation of outlays for such
fiscal year for the committee reporting such measure by the
amount of outlays that corresponds to such excess obligation
limitations, but not to exceed the amount of such excess that
was offset pursuant to subsection (a).

Subtitle C--Implementation

SEC. 321. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
resolution--
(1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct
spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and
surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall
be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee
on the Budget; and
(2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments
to such levels to carry out this resolution.
(d) Enforcement in the House.--In the House, for the
purpose of enforcing this concurrent resolution, sections
302(f) and 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
shall apply to fiscal year 2004 and the total for fiscal year
2004 and the four ensuing fiscal years.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE
HOUSE.

(a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported
in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation
or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto.
(2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless
specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given
by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
(b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may
be provided for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal years 2005 and
2006 for programs, projects, activities or accounts
identified in the joint explanatory statement of managers
accompanying this resolution under the heading ``Accounts
Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate
amount not to exceed $23,178,000,000 in new budget authority.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority
in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations
or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2004 that first
becomes available for any fiscal year after 2004.

SEC. 402. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

(a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section
302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section
13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the joint
explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on
any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its
allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for
the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social
Security Administration.
(b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
estimates of the level of total new budget authority and
total outlays provided by a measure shall include any
discretionary amounts provided for the Social Security
Administration.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No further amendment is in order except the
amendments printed in part B of the report. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by
the Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for
amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate which shall
not exceed 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
report 108-44.

Part B Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr.
Hill

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Part B amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Hill:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2004.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 is hereby
established and that the appropriate levels for fiscal years
2005 through 2013 are hereby set forth.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Homeland security.
Sec. 103. Major functional categories.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Increase in debt limit contingent upon plan to restore
balanced budget.
Sec. 203. Review of budget outlook.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND ENFORCEMENT

Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

Sec. 301. Reserve fund for homeland security.
Sec. 302. Reserve fund for the costs of military operations in iraq.
Sec. 303. Reserve fund for additional mandatory funding for existing
health and employment programs which provide assistance
to States and individuals.
Sec. 304. Reserve fund for surface transportation.
Sec. 305. Reserve fund for bioshield.
Sec. 306. Reserve fund for permanent extension of tax cuts; medicare.

Subtitle B--Enforcement

Sec. 311. Point of order against certain legislation reducing the
surplus or increasing the deficit after fiscal year 2008.
Sec. 312. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 313. Discretionary spending limits in the House.
Sec. 314. Emergency legislation.
Sec. 315. Pay-as-you-go point of order in the House.
Sec. 316. Disclosure of effect of legislation on the public debt.
Sec. 317. Disclosure of interest costs.
Sec. 318. Dynamic scoring of tax legislation.

TITLE IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Sense of Congress regarding budget enforcement.
Sec. 402. Sense of Congress on tax reform.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

[[Page H2177]]

Fiscal year 2009: -$21,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: -$33,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$33,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $0.
Fiscal year 2013: $0.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,843,018,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,951,195,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,071,194,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,171,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,276,515,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,373,830,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,472,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,585,874,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,662,041,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,768,930,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,851,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,942,306,000.000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,045,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,140,438,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,249,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,355,806,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,461,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,586,165,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,653,413,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,776,371,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $409,781,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $337,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $298,326,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $276,472,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $267,599,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $256,276,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $234,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $125,369,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $15,634,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $-1,839,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public
debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $7,179,838,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $7,621,902,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $8,048,310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $8,457,629,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $8,861,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $9,258,280,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $9,637,286,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $9,911,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $10,082,375,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $10,239,283,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $4,072,838,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,221,902,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $4,321,310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $4,378,629,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $4,406,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $4,404,280,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $4,361,286,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $4,191,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $3,895,375,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $3,568,283,000,000.

SEC. 102. HOMELAND SECURITY.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority for fiscal year 2004 for
Homeland Security are as follows:
(1) New budget authority, $41,035,000,000.

SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2004 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $400,476,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $400,882,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $420,071,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,205,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $440,185,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,007,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $460,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $438,656,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $480,886,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $462,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $494,067,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $480,650,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $507,840,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $497,348,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $522,103,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $516,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $536,531,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $523,884,000,000.
(A) New budget authority, $551,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $543,541,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $25,681,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,207,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $29,734,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,917,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $32,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,539,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $33,603,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,464,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $34,611,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,604,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $35,413,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,733,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $36,258,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,689,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $37,136,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $38,005,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,408,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $38,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,298,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $23,503,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $24,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,618,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $25,112,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $25,949,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,097,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $26,722,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,833,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $27,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,528,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $28,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,183,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $28,687,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,847,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $29,372,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,520,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $30,062,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,198,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $2,690,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $959,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $2,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $2,741,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,559,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,097,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $3,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,446,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $3,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,712,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $3,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,823,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $3,319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,006,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $3,430,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,386,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $3,547,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,359,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $30,237,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,357,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $31,084,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,996,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $31,824,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $32,384,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,168,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $33,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $34,577,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $35,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,857,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $36,684,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,870,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $37,629,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,772,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $38,549,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,769,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $24,629,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,693,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $27,028,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $26,841,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,587,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $26,296,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $25,494,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,368,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $26,079,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,111,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $25,531,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $24,971,000,000.

[[Page H2178]]

(B) Outlays, $24,157,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $24,550,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,752,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $24,267,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,472,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $7,513,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,630,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $8,778,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,132,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $8,337,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,193,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $8,670,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,708,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $8,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,013,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,448,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $9,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,168,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $9,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,786,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,347,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,508,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $9,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,731,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $59,741,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,763,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $64,072,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,422,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $64,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $64,948,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,388,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $65,521,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,758,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $66,303,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,299,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $67,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,902,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $67,947,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,629,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $68,819,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,449,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $69,726,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,306,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $14,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,085,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $14,628,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,231,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $14,929,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,385,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $15,259,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,174,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $15,652,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,756,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $16,019,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,065,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $16,406,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,414,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $16,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $17,205,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $17,610,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,579,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $88,575,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,634,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $87,080,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,690,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $89,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,920,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $91,519,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $88,896,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $93,852,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,029,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $95,607,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $97,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,187,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $99,277,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,003,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $101,142,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,838,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $103,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,775,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $240,084,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $239,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $252,037,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $251,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $269,598,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $290,285,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $288,983,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $312,078,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $310,553,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $335,314,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $333,819,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $361,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $359,731,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $389,078,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $387,597,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $419,498,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $418,027,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $452,918,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $451,354,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $265,111,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $265,376,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $282,929,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $285,877,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $322,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $318,921,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $344,455,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $344,725,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $370,178,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $370,053,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $396,532,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $396,271,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $423,768,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $424,026,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $455,875,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $459,232,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $490,601,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $486,775,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $526,303,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $526,559,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $318,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $323,329,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $326,674,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $329,937,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $334,563,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $337,028,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $340,873,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $352,461,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $353,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $363,361,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $364,102,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $375,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $376,077,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $392,310,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $392,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $383,486,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $384,054,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $398,184,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $398,881,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $14,544,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,502,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,612,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,597,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $16,689,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,698,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,174,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,182,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,999,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,005,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $22,156,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,157,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $24,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,535,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $28,416,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,416,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $31,635,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,634,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $34,670,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,670,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $61,978,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,522,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $67,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,612,000,000.

[[Page H2179]]

Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $65,644,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,215,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $64,128,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,680,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $67,928,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,654,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $69,550,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $71,275,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,868,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $75,962,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,539,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $72,923,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $77,755,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,329,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $37,742,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,902,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $37,977,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,271,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $37,938,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,318,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $38,334,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,164,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $39,299,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,984,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $40,306,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,059,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $41,406,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,148,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $42,682,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,304,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $44,015,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,590,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $45,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,938,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $20,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,776,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $20,643,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,677,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $20,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $20,842,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,533,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,920,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,619,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $22,361,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,110,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,560,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $23,905,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $24,714,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,121,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $253,189,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $254,890,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $293,834,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $296,538,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $325,488,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $329,817,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $344,743,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $351,017,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $360,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $369,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $375,129,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $386,360,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $387,388,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $401,485,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $397,483,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,520,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $401,388,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $422,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $397,817,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $425,508,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0
(B) Outlays, $0.0
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0
(B) Outlays, $0.0
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0
(B) Outlays, $0.0
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0
(B) Outlays, $0.0
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $0.0
(B) Outlays, $0.0
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,116,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,232,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$3,712,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,360,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$5,082,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$6,437,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,040,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$45,580,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$45,580,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$55,509,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$55,509,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$57,437,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$57,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,206,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,753,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,753,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$56,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$56,560,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$58,985,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$58,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$61,522,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$61,522,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$66,358,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,358,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$68,977,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$68,977,000,000.
TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submission Providing Economic Growth.--(1) The House
Committee on Ways and Means shall report to the House a
reconciliation bill not later than April 11, 2003, that
consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce the total level of revenues by not
more than: $46,700,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2003 and 2004 and increase the total level of revenues by
not more than $49,900,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2004 through 2013.
(2) It is the sense of the Congress that in complying with
the instructions set forth in paragraph (1) the Committee on
Ways and Means should provide immediate tax relief and
economic stimulus by accelerating tax relief for middle-class
families through increases in the child tax credit, marriage
penalty relief, and reductions in individual income tax
rates, provide incentives for business investment, provide
immediate and permanent estate tax relief and defer tax
relief for individual taxpayers with incomes above $140,000
until the budget is in balance and national security threats
have been addressed.
(b) Submissions Regarding Medicare Reform and Prescription
Drugs.--Not later than July 18, 2003, the committees named in
this subsection shall submit their recommendations to the
Committee on the Budget of the House. After receiving those
recommendations, the Committee on the Budget shall report to
the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all such
recommendations without any substantive revisions.
(1) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction that reform medicare and provide a
prescription drug benefit, such that the total level of
direct spending for that committee does not exceed:
$6,000,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004 and
$400,000,000,000 in outlays in fiscal years 2004 through
2013.
(2) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that reform medicare and provide a prescription
drug benefit, such that the total level of direct spending
for that committee does not exceed: $6,000,000,000 in outlays
for fiscal year 2004 and $400,000,000,000 in outlays in
fiscal years 2004 through 2013.

SEC. 202. INCREASE IN DEBT LIMIT CONTINGENT UPON PLAN TO
RESTORE BALANCED BUDGET.

(a) Temporary Increase in Statutory Debt Limit.--The
Committee on Ways and Means of the House shall report a bill
as soon as practicable, but not later than April 11, 2003,
that consists solely of changes in laws within its
jurisdiction to increase the statutory debt limit by
$150,000,000,000.
(b) Point of Order.--(1) Except as provided by subsection
(a) or paragraph (2), it shall not be in order in the House
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that includes any provision that increases
the limit on the public debt by more than $100,000,000,000.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the House if--
(A) the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
House has made the certification described in section 203
that the unified budget will be in balance by fiscal year
2009; or
(B) the President has submitted to Congress a declaration
that such increase is necessary to finance costs of a
military conflict

[[Page H2180]]

or address an imminent threat to national security, but which
shall not exceed the amount of the adjustment under section
302 for the costs of military operations in Iraq.

SEC. 203. REVIEW OF BUDGET OUTLOOK.

(a) In General.--If, in the report released pursuant to
section 202 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, entitled
the Budget and Economic Outlook Update (for fiscal years 2004
through 2013), the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office projects that the unified budget of the United States
for fiscal year 2009 will be in balance, then the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the House is authorized to
certify that the budget is projected to meet the goals of a
balanced budget.
(b) Calculating Discretionary Spending Baseline.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office shall use the discretionary
spending levels set forth in this resolution, including any
adjustments to such levels as a result of the implementation
of any reserve funds set forth in this resolution to
calculate the discretionary spending baseline.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND ENFORCEMENT

Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR HOMELAND SECURITY.

(a) In General.--In the House, if the Committee on
Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an
amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon
is submitted, that provides new budget authority (and outlays
flowing therefrom) for the Department of Homeland Security
and if the Secretary of Homeland Security so requests, then
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the
appropriate revisions to the allocations and other levels in
this resolution by the amount provided by that measure for
that purpose.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Homeland Security should--
(1) conduct a homeland security needs assessment in
consultation with all Federal agencies with responsibilities
for homeland security and State and local governments; and
(2) submit a report to Congress with additional funding
requests, if any, identified in the needs assessment, and
that such report should also include a compilation of the
needs assessments submitted by State and local governments.

SEC. 302. RESERVE FUND FOR THE COSTS OF MILITARY OPERATIONS
IN IRAQ.

In the House, if the Committee on Appropriations reports a
bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is
offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that
provides new budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom)
for the costs of military operations in Iraq, then the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the
appropriate revisions to the allocations and other levels in
this resolution by the amount provided by that measure for
that purpose.

SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL MANDATORY FUNDING FOR
EXISTING HEALTH AND EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS WHICH
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO STATES AND INDIVIDUALS.

In the House, if the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, or the Committee on
Ways and Means reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an
amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon
is submitted, that provides new budget authority (and outlays
flowing therefrom) for additional mandatory funding for
existing health and employment programs which provide
assistance to States and individuals, then the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget shall make the appropriate
revisions to the allocations and other levels in this
resolution by the amount provided by that measure for that
purpose, but such revision shall not exceed $12,500,000,000
in new budget authority for the period of fiscal years 2003
through 2008 and outlays flowing therefrom.

SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

(a) In General.--In the House, if the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure reports a bill or joint
resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a
conference report thereon is submitted, that provides new
budget authority for the budget accounts or portions thereof
in the highway and transit categories as defined in sections
250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 in excess of the following
amounts:
(1) for fiscal year 2004: $30,340,000,000,
(2) for fiscal year 2005: $30,998,000,000,
(3) for fiscal year 2006: $31,707,000,000,
(4) for fiscal year 2007: $32,436,000,000, or
(5) for fiscal year 2008: $33,190,000,000,
and the amount of such excess in each such year is offset by
reductions in the deficit caused by such legislation or any
previously enacted legislation that changes direct spending
from, or receipts subsequently appropriated to, the Highway
Trust Fund, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may
increase the allocation of new budget authority for such
committee by the amount of such excess for fiscal year 2004
and by the total amount of such excesses for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008 and make the necessary
offsetting adjustments in the appropriate budget aggregates
and allocations.
(b) Committee on Appropriations.--In the House, if the
Committee on Appropriations reports a bill or joint
resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a
conference report thereon is submitted, that establishes
obligation limitations that, in total, are in excess of
$38,496,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, but not to exceed the
amount of such excess that was offset pursuant to subsection
(a), for programs, projects, and activities within the
highway and transit categories as defined in sections
250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 and if legislation has been
enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in subsection
(a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget may increase the allocation of outlays for such
fiscal year for the Committee on Appropriations by the amount
of outlays that corresponds to such excess obligation
limitations.

SEC. 305. RESERVE FUND FOR BIOSHIELD.

the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise the
allocations for the committee providing such new budget
authority, and other appropriate levels in this resolution,
by the amount provided for that purpose, but, in the case of
a measure described in paragraph (1), not to exceed
$890,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2004 and
outlays flowing therefrom and $3,418,000,000 in new budget
authority for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008
and outlays flowing therefrom or, in the case of a measure
described in paragraph (2), not to exceed $890,000,000 in new
budget authority for fiscal year 2004 and outlays flowing
therefrom. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the total
such revision for fiscal year 2004 may not exceed
$890,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays flowing
therefrom.

SEC. 306. RESERVE FUND FOR PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TAX CUTS;
MEDICARE.

In the House, notwithstanding section 311 of this
resolution, if the Committee on Ways and Means reports a bill
or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or
a conference report thereon is submitted, that makes the
provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 permanent or provides additional
resources for a medicare prescription drug benefit in excess
of $400,000,000,000 over the period of fiscal years 2004
through 2013, and if the chairman on the Committee on the
Budget certifies that the enactment of such legislation would
not cause or increase an on-budget deficit in 2013, then the
chairman on the Committee on the Budget shall revise
allocations to accommodate such legislation and make other
necessary adjustments.

Subtitle B--Enforcement

SEC. 311. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CERTAIN LEGISLATION REDUCING
THE SURPLUS OR INCREASING THE DEFICIT AFTER
FISCAL YEAR 2008.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that includes any provision that first
provides new budget authority or a decrease in revenues for
any fiscal year after fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year
2013 that would decrease the surplus or increase the deficit
for any fiscal year.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House
certifies, based on estimates prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, that Congress has enacted
legislation restoring 75-year solvency of the Federal Old Age
and Survivors Disability Insurance Trust Fund and legislation
extending the solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
for 20 years.

SEC. 312. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

[[Page H2181]]

SEC. 313. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS IN THE HOUSE.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
to consider any bill or joint resolution, or amendment
thereto, that provides new budget authority that would cause
the discretionary spending limits to be exceeded for any
fiscal year.
(b) Discretionary Spending Limits.--In the House and as
used in this section, the term ``discretionary spending
limit'' means--
(8) with respect to fiscal year 2004--
(A) for the defense category: $399,683,000,000 in new
budget authority and $389,746,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the nondefense category: $392,517,000,000 in new
budget authority and $429,054,000,000 in outlays;
(9) with respect to fiscal year 2005--
(A) for the defense category: $420,019,000,000 in new
budget authority and $409,737,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the nondefense category: $393,481,000,000 in new
budget authority and $440,264,000,000 in outlays;
(10) with respect to fiscal year 2006--
(A) for the defense category: $440,044,000,000 in new
budget authority and $422,808,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the nondefense category: $402,256,000,000 in new
budget authority and $446,992,000,000;
(11) with respect to fiscal year 2007--
(A) for the defense category: $460,309,000,000 in new
budget authority and $436,164,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the nondefense category: $412,091,000,000 in new
budget authority and $455,236,000,000;
(12) with respect to fiscal year 2008--
(A) for the defense category: $480,747,000,000 in new
budget authority and $460,190,000,000 in outlays;
(B) for the nondefense category: $494,853,000,000 in new
budget authority and $465,710,000,000;
as adjusted in conformance with subsection (c).
(c) Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Chairman.--After the reporting of a bill or joint
resolution, the offering of an amendment thereto, or the
submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget may make the adjustments set
forth in subparagraph (B) for the amount of new budget
authority in that measure (if that measure meets the
requirements set forth in paragraph (2)) and the outlays
flowing from that budget authority. The chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may also make appropriate adjustments
for the reserve funds set forth in sections 301, 302, and
303.
(B) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in
subparagraph (A) are to be made to--
(i) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in
the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;
(ii) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
(iii) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in the
appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget.
(2) Amounts of adjustments.--The adjustment referred to in
paragraph (1) shall be--
(A) an amount provided and designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 314;
(B) an amount appropriated for homeland security as
provided in section 301;
(C) an amount appropriated for military operations in Iraq
as provided in section 302; and
(D) an amount provided for transportation under section
304.
(3) Application of adjustments.--The adjustments made for
legislation pursuant to paragraph (1) shall--
(A) apply while that legislation is under consideration;
(B) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and
(C) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(4) Application of this section.--The provisions of this
section shall apply to legislation providing new budget
authority for fiscal years 2003 through 2008.
(d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--(1) It
shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to
consider a rule or order that waives the application of this
section.
(2)(A) This subsection shall apply only to the House of
Representatives.
(B) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of
order under this section must specify the precise language on
which it is premised.
(C) As disposition of points of order under this section,
the Chair shall put the question of consideration with
respect to the proposition that is the subject of the points
of order.
(D) A question of consideration under this section shall be
debatable for 10 minutes by each Member initiating a point of
order and for 10 minutes by an opponent on each point of
order, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening
motion except one that the House adjourn or that the
Committee of the Whole rise, as the case may be.
(E) The disposition of the question of consideration under
this subsection with respect to a bill or joint resolution
shall be considered also to determine the question of
consideration under this subsection with respect to an
amendment made in order as original text.

SEC. 314. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

(a) Authority To Designate.--If a provision of direct
spending or receipts legislation is enacted or if
appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that
the President designates as an emergency requirement and that
the Congress so designates in statute, the amounts of new
budget authority, outlays, and receipts in all fiscal years
resulting from that provision shall be designated as an
emergency requirement for the purpose of this resolution.
(b) Designations.--
(1) Guidance.--If a provision of legislation is designated
as an emergency requirement under subsection (a), the
committee report and any statement of managers accompanying
that legislation shall analyze whether a proposed emergency
requirement meets all the criteria in paragraph (2).
(2) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--The criteria to be considered in
determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change is
an emergency requirement are that the expenditure or tax
change is--
(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or
beneficial);
(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;
(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate
level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally
estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
(3) Justification for use of designation.--When an
emergency designation is proposed in any bill, joint
resolution, or conference report thereon, the committee
report and the statement of managers accompanying a
conference report, as the case may be, shall provide a
written justification of why the provision meets the criteria
set forth in paragraph (2).
(c) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``direct
spending'', ``receipts'', and ``appropriations for
discretionary accounts'' means any provision of a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion or conference report that
provides direct spending, receipts, or appropriations as
those terms have been defined and interpreted for purposes of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
(d) Separate House Vote on Emergency Designation.--(1) In
the House, in the consideration of any measure for amendment
in the Committee of the Whole containing any emergency
spending designation, it shall always be in order unless
specifically waived by terms of a rule governing
consideration of that measure, to move to strike such
emergency spending designation from the portion of the bill
then open to amendment.
(2) The Committee on Rules shall include in the report
required by clause 1(d) of rule XI (relating to its
activities during the Congress) of the Rules of House of
Representatives a separate item identifying all waivers of
points of order relating to emergency spending designations,
listed by bill or joint resolution number and the subject
matter of that measure.
(e) Committee Notification of Emergency Legislation.--
Whenever the Committee on Appropriations or any other
committee of either House (including a committee of
conference) reports any bill or joint resolution that
provides budget authority for any emergency, the report
accompanying that bill or joint resolution (or the joint
explanatory statement of managers in the case of a conference
report on any such bill or joint resolution) shall identify
all provisions that provide budget authority and the outlays
flowing therefrom for such emergency and include a statement
of the reasons why such budget authority meets the definition
of an emergency pursuant to the guidelines described in
subsection (b).
(f) Conference Reports.--If a point of order is sustained
under this section against a conference report, the report
shall be disposed of as provided in section 313(d) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(g) Exception for Defense and Homeland Security Spending.--
Subsection (d) shall not apply against an emergency
designation for a provision making discretionary
appropriations in the defense category and for homeland
security programs.

SEC. 315. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE HOUSE.

(a) Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House to
consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that
would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget
deficit for any one of the three applicable time periods as
measured in paragraphs (5) and (6).
(2) Applicable time periods.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means any 1
of the 3 following periods:
(A) The first year covered by the most recently adopted
concurrent resolution on the budget.
(B) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the
most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
(C) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5
fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget.
(3) Direct-spending legislation.--For purposes of this
subsection and except as

[[Page H2182]]

provided in paragraph (4), the term ``direct-spending
legislation'' means any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report that affects direct spending as that term
is defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(4) Exclusion.--For purposes of this subsection, the terms
``direct-spending legislation'' and ``revenue legislation''
do not include--
(A) any concurrent resolution on the budget;
(B) any reconciliation bill reported pursuant to section
201 of this resolution;
(C) any provision of legislation that affects the full
funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance
guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990; or
(D) any legislation for which an adjustment is made under
section 302.
(5) Baseline.--Estimates prepared pursuant to this section
shall--
(A) use the baseline surplus or deficit used for the most
recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget as
adjusted for any changes in revenues or direct spending
assumed by such resolution; and
(B) be calculated under the requirements of subsections (b)
through (d) of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for fiscal years beyond
those covered by that concurrent resolution on the budget.
(6) Prior surplus.--If direct spending or revenue
legislation increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-
budget deficit when taken individually, it must also increase
the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when
taken together with all direct spending and revenue
legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year
not accounted for in the baseline under paragraph (5)(A),
except that direct spending or revenue effects resulting in
net deficit reduction enacted pursuant to reconciliation
instructions since the beginning of that same calendar year
shall not be available.
(b) Appeals.--Appeals in the House from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution, as the case may be.
(c) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and
revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis
of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the
House.
(d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--(1) It
shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to
consider a rule or order that waives the application of this
section.
(2)(A) This subsection shall apply only to the House of
Representatives.
(B) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of
order under this section must specify the precise language on
which it is premised.
(C) As disposition of points of order under this section,
the Chair shall put the question of consideration with
respect to the proposition that is the subject of the points
of order.
(D) A question of consideration under this section shall be
debatable for 10 minutes by each Member initiating a point of
order and for 10 minutes by an opponent on each point of
order, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening
motion except one that the House adjourn or that the
Committee of the Whole rise, as the case may be.
(E) The disposition of the question of consideration under
this subsection with respect to a bill or joint resolution
shall be considered also to determine the question of
consideration under this subsection with respect to an
amendment made in order as original text.
(e) Sunset.--This section shall expire on September 30,
2008.

SEC. 316. DISCLOSURE OF EFFECT OF LEGISLATION ON THE PUBLIC
DEBT.

Each report of a committee of the House on a public bill or
public joint resolution shall contain an estimate by the
committee of the amount the public debt would be increased
(including related debt service costs) in carrying out the
bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in which it is
reported and in the 5-fiscal year period beginning with such
fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of any program
authorized by the bill or joint resolution if less than five
years).

SEC. 317. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST COSTS.

Whenever a committee of either House of Congress reports to
its House legislation providing new budget authority or
providing an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures, the report accompanying that bill or joint
resolution shall contain a projection by the Congressional
Budget Office of the cost of the debt servicing that would be
caused by such measure for such fiscal year (or fiscal years)
and each of the 4 ensuing fiscal years.

SEC. 318. DYNAMIC SCORING OF TAX LEGISLATION.

Any report of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of any bill or joint resolution reported by that committee
that proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
which report includes an estimate prepared by the Joint
Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation pursuant to clause
2(h)(2) of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall
also contain an estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office regarding the macroeconomic effect of any increase or
decrease in the estimated budget deficit resulting from such
bill or joint resolution.

TITLE IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

It is the sense of Congress that legislation should be
enacted enforcing this resolution by--
(1) setting discretionary spending limits for budget
authority and outlays at the levels set forth in this
resolution for each of the next 5 fiscal years;
(2) reinstating the pay-as-you-go rules set forth in
section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 for the next 10 fiscal years;
(3) requiring separate votes to exceed such discretionary
spending limits or to waive such pay-as-you-go rules;
(4) establishing a definition for emergency spending and
requiring a justification for emergency spending requests and
legislation; and
(5) establishing expedited rescission authority regarding
congressional votes on rescission submitted by the President
and reducing discretionary spending limits to reflect savings
from any rescissions enacted into law.

SEC. 402. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TAX REFORM.

It is the sense of Congress that the Committee on Ways and
Means should--
(1) work with the Secretary of the Treasury to draft
legislation reforming the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in a
revenue-neutral manner to improve savings and investment; and
(2) consider changes that address the treatment of
dividends and retirement savings, corporate tax avoidance,
and simplification of the tax laws.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself as much time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog plan that we are offering today
combines short-term economic stimulus and immediate tax relief for all
taxpayers with long-term fiscal discipline to balance the budget by
2009 and return to saving the Social Security surplus by 2013. The Blue
Dog budget has nearly $2 trillion less debt than the President's budget
from the year 2003 to 2013. The Blue Dog budget calls for tough
spending limits by adopting the President's overall spending levels but
does not rely on unreasonable or unrealistic spending cuts from the
President's proposal.
The Blue Dog budget will hold Congress accountable for the increase
in the debt tax by limiting increases in the debt limit and requiring
regular votes by Congress to raise the debt limit until the budget is
on the path towards balance.
We strongly support the President in the war on terrorism and in
keeping a strong defense. Our budget provides the President with
everything he requested for defense and homeland security and sets
aside a reserve fund for additional funding for homeland security if
the administration requests it. The Blue Dog budget is good policy,
plain and simple. For every $1,000 each taxpayer sends to Washington,
an income tax roughly $180 goes to pay the interest on our national
debt. The Blue Dog budget reduces that burden while the Republican
budget increases that burden. That is what we call the ``debt tax.''
Eighteen percent of the Federal budget, over $2,500 per person, over
$4,000 per family, and it only gets worse if we follow their plan. Bob
Dole called it the stealth tax in 1996. It was mentioned in a 1995
Republican-authored resolution, and it was referenced in the first
plank of the 1994 Republican Contract with America.
The debt tax is money that goes towards nothing, and it is a tax that
cannot be repealed. It does not make our Nation stronger. It does not
make health care more affordable. It does not make our schools better.
It does not provide more jobs, and it surely does not make our economy
more robust.
It is time to get back on the track towards balancing the Federal
budget. We cannot and should not send our troops, our brave men and
women, into battle, then saddle them with the bill. It is not the right
thing to do, and everybody in this body knows it. The Blue Dog budget
will restore fiscal responsibility, stability, and accountability to
Federal budgeting process. A

[[Page H2183]]

great American from the great State of Tennessee once said that no
nation has ever been free, strong, and broke.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as I may consume. I
respectfully claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, obviously I support the work of the committee, the
underlying resolution, the budget resolution that is forwarded today. I
want to thank the Blue Dog Coalition for coming forth with yet another
budget proposal this year. I believe this is a consistent track record
for the Blue Dogs in providing a budget resolution for consideration.
We will disagree with that budget here today as they disagree with our
budget, but I want to start by complimenting them because even last
year at a time when the minority did not come forward with a caucus
position, the Blue Dogs did. And the so-called Blue Dogs in this
instance have done so again and I want to respect that. Only people who
have actually gone through the process of writing a budget know how
difficult that task can be in making some of the choices one has to
make in order to arrive at this.
I disagree with their approach, however, for a number of reasons.
First of all, I do not believe what they are putting forward supports
our economy. I believe what we need right now is a growth package. The
President has put that forward. We indicated that the second most
important part of our budget is providing growth to the economy to
create jobs. We believe we need tax simplification. We believe we need
tax reform. We believe we need to lower the tax on the American people
at a time of recession, not just for the sake of lowering taxes but
because we know, we have seen this happen in the past many times in
history where when we reduce the tax burden on America, when we reduce
it particularly to a level at or below the average of taxes and
revenues compared to the gross domestic product, that that does have a
growth effect, a stimulative effect, on the economy.
And so while we will agree today on national defense and homeland
security, probably the biggest departure we will see between these two
budgets is regarding growth in the economy and creating jobs. We just
happen to believe on our side that getting a growth package through to
create jobs is vitally important. We are also going to have a
semantical debate here today. I do not want to throw gasoline on the
fire, so I am going to try not to. But I have to say that if we are not
going to continue an already-reduced reduction in taxes, I mean I do
not know what we call that. I know many on my side have come down here
and I know it makes my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition cringe when
they hear it when we have heard on our side that that be explained as a
tax increase, but you might be able to understand why you cringe when
you see us cringe when a reduction in the anticipated increase is
called a cut.
And time after time today we have seen Members come to the floor on
the other side of the aisle and explain that we are making excruciating
cuts in veterans and education and Medicare and Medicaid and all sorts
of different programs when in fact that is simply not the case. One not
only cannot find it within our budget document, but in fact that is not
the choice that we request. What we request is that we go through the
budget and we look for waste, fraud, and abuse and places where we have
been spending money we did not have to, and we do not have all of them
but these are just some examples that you do not ask us to go after:
Foreign Assistance, the Effectiveness and Accountability of Problems
Common to U.S. Programs, Taking Strategic Approach for DOD and the
Acquisition of Services, Implementation of an Electronic Benefit
Transfer System in the Food Stamp Program, IRS's Efforts to Improve
Compliance with the Employment Tax.
I mean, all of these save money. All of these find places where we
are just not doing a good job. All of these ought to be a hearing. All
of these ought to be a place where we can introduce legislation and we
can say that is not a cut. To go through this and to actually look at
the General Accounting Office, and we pay them a lot of money. Talk
about waste. If you are going to hire people to go through the programs
from the General Accounting Office and then you do not even listen to
them, my friend, the comptroller general, would not like my saying
this, but why do we hire these folks to give us these good ideas of
places we can reduce spending, not cutting benefits, not cutting
services, not closing nursing homes, not cutting off senior citizens,
not eliminating Meals on Wheels or food stamps or school lunches or,
oh, my goodness, all of the things that people have come down here
wringing their hands about today, but just going through here:
Controlling the Weakness in Property Vulnerable to Improper Use, Loss
and Theft. There is a real partisan issue, theft. I mean if we are
stealing things from agencies, from departments, and I have heard
everything from a 61-inch television; I mean, come on.
Does that balance the budget? No. We are not suggesting that alone
balances the budget, but we have got to start somewhere.

I could go on. The Deteriorating Financial Outlook and the Need for
Transformation in the Postal Service, Medicare, Medicaid, FAA. Here is
one, let us see, Significant Weakness in the Computer Controls. And, in
fact, I believe we spent $8 million trying to get the Department of
Agriculture to go to a new computer system; and guess what, after I
think 8 years and $8 million, they found out they could not go to the
new system. So we just spent $8 million for nothing on that. Defense
Acquisitions, Debt Collection, Food Stamps. Again, there is another
one. But if we even look at food stamps, people will say we are somehow
throwing the poor out in the street. Medicare, here we go again. Boy,
do not touch Medicare, though. Do not even look there. Heaven forbid.
It must be a perfect program. Just add more benefits, and it will be
fine. I mean, we could go on and on. They are replete. I have got a
whole pile over on this side. You do not look at that. And that is an
important area where we believe it is time to challenge the committees
to do the work to find the savings.
Last but not least, I believe that it is time that we do something
together around here, and that is enforce the budget. I know that we
are going to disagree today on a number of these topics. The thing that
is so frustrating is when time after time Members, and it happens in
the Blue Dogs, it happens on our side as well, where we come down here,
we talk about our budgets and then during the appropriations process we
blow through those things. We find different ways to come through the
process without holding to the budget that we agreed to. I would hope
that my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition more than anybody else, and I
know they do, believe that once we have a budget, it is time to enforce
it because if we cannot even enforce that, having this debate today is
going to be meaningless.
So as I started off with today, we do not support just allowing these
tax cuts to expire. We happen to believe that does increase the tax
burden. We want to make sure that we have spending restraint. You claim
to do it with interest payments; but we want to do it with actual
spending, not just with interest payments; and we want to make sure
that we figure out a way to grow the economy and create jobs. And for
those reasons I respectfully oppose the Blue Dog budget, but wish them
congratulations on actually creating one which is something that many
people around here claim they want to do, but do not always accomplish.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding,
but I want to use a portion of my time commending him, but I wanted to
ask the gentleman a question.
Mr. NUSSLE. What?
Mr. STENHOLM. I will when it comes my time, but I will do it on my
own time, but I am curious because it seems to me over the last 8 years
you talk about your party has been in control. So all of the points
that you make with the blue books, why have we not done it?

{time} 1730

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I can tell the
gentleman

[[Page H2184]]

why. It is a frustration of mine, and it is the reason why I put the
budget out that I did this year.
When we got to surplus, and we have seen the chart, when we got to
balancing and began going into surplus, particularly into discretionary
spending, all of us around here very cheerfully started getting into a
bidding war. We could do a little better than you in education, you
could do a little better than us in health care. We went on and on and
on.
Look at the charts in any of those categories. Once 1998 happened, as
my friend knows, we could not say no to anything. It was very difficult
to try to control that. That is just the discretionary side, which, as
the gentleman knows, is only one-quarter of the budget.
On the mandatory side, think of the last time in a partisan or
bipartisan way that we tried to take on an entitlement and even tried
to control spending. My friend has quite a bit of control or interest
in agriculture, as do I. I sit on a committee that has jurisdiction
over Medicare and welfare. We did it in welfare and had some real
success.
I just want us to start looking at that process again. That is the
reason in this budget I challenge the committees. I do not do it
myself. I do not try and tell my good friend on the Committee on
Agriculture exactly where that ought to come from. But I do challenge
him to look at the reports on food stamps and others and say, can we
not do a better job?
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I
do not want to leave the impression that the Blue Dog budget is doing
anything more than spending what President Bush has asked the Congress
to spend, not 1 penny more.
We sometimes get the rhetoric around here, you would think we are big
spenders in our budget. We are spending what the President has asked us
to spend, and no more.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is a good point.
But that is just the first year. We believe that we need to continue to
control that spending in the outyears as well.
We also believe, and that is the reason why the budget was presented
the way it was, that the President had some areas where we could
control. This was true with President Clinton, President Reagan,
President Bush, with all of them.
Congress is responsible for controlling spending under Article I of
the Constitution. We like to blame the fellow down the street, but,
more often than not, it is the people that we look at every day in the
mirror that can do the best job at controlling spending.
As I say, I compliment the gentleman and my friends for putting
together a budget. We respectfully disagree with that budget for the
reasons that I state.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear more from my friends in the
coalition.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Blue
Dog budget plan, a fiscally responsible proposal that recognizes
America's priorities at a time when our country is at war and our
Nation is in debt.
The budget resolution before us today is seriously flawed. It is a
step in the wrong direction that ignores the realities we are facing as
a Nation. The Blue Dog budget, on the other hand, recognizes the costs
of waging war, addresses the state of our struggling economy, and
answers the needs of ordinary Americans across the Nation.
As we speak, men and women in uniform are fighting to disarm Iraq and
are battling al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands are now
serving their country after being called up, leaving their jobs and
their families, many on short notice and at great financial and
personal costs. Our troops are indeed making huge sacrifices.
But what about the average American who is not on Active Duty or in
the Reserves? How have the rest of us been called upon to make our own
contribution to the security and prosperity of the United States? The
budget resolution before us includes a host of large tax cuts weighted
heavily toward America's wealthiest families. Certainly this cannot be
the sacrifice we are expected to make.
In every other conflict since the Civil War, the Commander in Chief
has called for an increase in revenues to meet the national defense.
Will we be the first generation since the Civil War to reduce revenue
during wartime?
Over the last 2 years we have lost almost 2 million jobs. How can we
afford to consider large and long-term cuts that will neither improve
our defense, stimulate our economy, nor help those most in need?
Many of us who supported tax cuts when we were at peace and enjoying
historic surpluses must now oppose any fiscally irresponsible budget
with even larger cuts, now that we are at war and spiraling into severe
debt. I must ask, where have all the fiscal conservatives gone? Where
have they fled from the majority party?
In addition to the much-needed stimulus, the Blue Dog plan
prioritizes national defense and homeland security. These priorities
are fully funded at levels requested by the President.
While we provide strong support for our national defense and homeland
security, we must not turn our backs on important domestic priorities.
The American people are begging for a budget that invests in education,
health care, and includes a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The
Blue Dog plan responds to Americans across the country and provides a
$400 billion plan for prescription drugs over the next 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, this plan, the Blue Dog plan, will provide for our
defense and homeland security needs, it will provide a vital economic
stimulus and sustainable tax relief for ordinary Americans, and the
plan will move our country forward with investments in health,
education and other domestic priorities. Our plan will accomplish these
goals and achieve $2 trillion less in debt than the administration's
plan over the next 10 years.
Americans are a proud and generous people, more than willing to
sacrifice for a worthy cause. If, instead, we give ourselves a gift no
other war generation has given themselves, we will denude our ability
to defend the homeland, or shift the costs to the next generation.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Michaud), a new Member, and a fine one at that.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Blue Dog budget.
As a cochair of the Blue Dog Caucus, I was proud to work with my
colleagues on this fine proposal. In my 22 years as a State legislator
in Maine, I have always delivered a balanced budget, and I can tell you
that the Blue Dog budget is a great budget.
My time is brief, so I just want to make three vital points about the
Blue Dog approach.
First, this budget is balanced. We achieve a $15 billion surplus by
the year 2009, and we have $2 trillion less in debt over the next 10
years than the President's budget.
Today we spend 18 cents of every dollar on servicing our debt. What a
waste of money. This is a debt tax that every American pays, 18 cents
on every hard-earned dollar.
We balance the budget and control the debt. The Blue Dog approach
reduces waste, and it lowers the taxes that we all pay. Now, that is a
tax cut that we all can agree on.
Second, this budget is fair. It funds defense at the same level as
the President, it gives tax relief to everyone, and it includes $60
billion in immediate economic stimulus, including desperately needed
assistance to States, States like the State of Maine, which the
Committee on the Budget does not provide for.
Third, this budget is just. The Committee on the Budget resolution
cuts mandatory spending in many areas. One of the most unconscionable
cuts is a $15 billion reduction for veteran programs. On the very day
we go to war, how can we vote to neglect our veterans like this?
Not only does the Blue Dog budget restore these cuts, but it also
restores

[[Page H2185]]

other funding to vital domestic programs like education, child care,
dislocated workers programs and homeland security, and it does all of
this within a balanced budget.
I say to my colleagues that this is not a party issue, it is not a
political issue. This is about keeping our commitments, investing in
our priorities and meeting our responsibilities.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reach across the
line that sometimes divides us and unite today for a budget that is
balanced, that is fair and that is just.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a great American.
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog budget is based on a very
simple premise that basically says that our generation needs to be
willing to have the courage to pay the bills that we are incurring and
not pass this staggering debt on to our children.
As hard as this may be to imagine, we the people of the United States
of America owe $6.4 trillion. If we follow the budget plan that the
majority has put forward, that number will balloon to $10 trillion, and
our country will be unable to meet its obligations. Can you imagine the
richest country on Earth dead broke?
Eight months ago Congress increased the debt ceiling by $450 billion
to pay for additional spending and tax cuts. Now the Treasury
Department has notified us that we have reached this new debt limit,
and it will have to be increased in the coming weeks.
It gets even worse. The Congressional Budget Office recently reported
that the deficit for this year will be $287 billion, and that is
without paying any cost of the war that has begun in Iraq. They also
predicted over the next 10 years another $2 trillion of debt will be
piled onto what we have already incurred.
Last year taxpayers in this country paid an accrued $332 billion in
interest on revenues of $1.8 trillion. That amounts to a Federal debt
tax on American families of 18 cents on every dollar. Said another way,
we have an 18 percent mortgage on this country, and it is growing.
Notwithstanding the moral arguments of what we are doing to the next
generation of Americans, at some point, in order to make the public
investment needed to keep a world-class military, a healthy and
educated workforce, and the bricks-and-mortar infrastructure that
enables private enterprise in this country to flourish, we must stop
deficit spending.
People since the dawn of civilization have tried to borrow themselves
rich. It never worked then, and it will not work now, and it will not
work in the future. That is exactly the prescription that the
Republicans are asking us to follow; we can borrow ourselves rich. It
will never happen.
We must stop the hemorrhaging, the hemorrhaging, from the Federal
Treasury, because it is bleeding from every pore of our body. Any
rational person understands that this business plan for our country is
not a tenable plan and cannot be sustained over time.
Now, here we are debating today what direction our country will take.
This plan includes no cuts in the veterans' programs that some have
talked about. But it does something else. At this moment when our men
and women in uniform are in battle, they are the only people in this
society being asked to sacrifice anything, anything, and that is
absolutely unfair. It is not only unfair, it is immoral. So what we
have done in the Blue Dog plan is we have asked the most financially
well-to-do people in this country to defer the additional tax cuts they
get in addition to everybody else under our plan, we have asked them to
defer their additional tax cuts in order to help pay for this war so
that we do not continue to dig this hole deeper.
Now, I agree with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) on one thing:
When you say in Washington, and only in Washington, that an increase is
considered a cut because it is not a projected increase, then it is
considered a cut here, that is baloney, and I agree with the gentleman.
I will also tell the gentleman that when you try to accuse somebody of
raising taxes on a tax cut that is not yet effective, that is equally
political baloney, and everybody knows it.
I just would say this: Something has got to be done. We cannot
continue down this road of debt, more debt and more debt. And if we do
not do something about it, we have completely abdicated our
responsibility not only to our country today, but to our country
tomorrow. That is why I would urge every Member who worries about the
financial condition of this country and its ability to maintain the
world-class military that we all desire and all of the other things I
have talked about, please consider voting for and supporting the Blue
Dog budget.

{time} 1745

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the strongest voice in this House about the
era of Federal budget deficits.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, before anyone thinks that I
am trying to impress upon them that I am a biblical scholar, I will
tell my colleagues I am not, but I happened to listen to one Sunday
evening. His name is Father Dennis Carver, and he was in Pass
Christian, Mississippi. He was talking about a civilization called the
Babylonians. They were apparently a very prosperous civilization, but
one of the things that was unique about them is that for the sake of
their prosperity, they would literally take their children, put them on
an alter, and slit their throats.
Although the gentleman from Iowa's budget does not quite do that, I
will say that it is fair to say that we are burdening our children with
so much debt that they cannot possibly hope to attain the sort of
lifestyle that we have, or remain the world's greatest Nation.
In 1994, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, gave a speech on this House floor bemoaning
the fact that at the time, every American man, woman, and child was
$17,000 in debt as a portion of the national debt. The Republicans took
over in 1995. I had hoped things would get better. But since 1995
through today, that same statistic is that every American man, woman,
and child is now in debt $22,000. The Republicans have been in charge,
the Republican Party. I had hoped they were truly fiscal conservatives.
They have proven otherwise.
If we look at American history, during every single war in American
history, and I challenge all of my colleagues to question me on this
and look it up for themselves, in every other war in American history,
they raised taxes to pay for that war. They took the attitude that
those of us who were fortunate enough not to be in the front lines, not
to be shot at, not to watch our comrades maimed, ought to at least be
willing to pay for that. But there is a difference. Only this
generation of Americans is saying that we are going to fight a war, we
are going to occupy the nation of Iraq for at least 10 years, with a
starting force of 100,000 people as occupiers, but, by the way, we are
going to stick these young people in this room and the young people
back in Mississippi, the young people in Texas, we are going to stick
them with the bill, knowing that they will never have a chance to
recover from that and they will continue to squander at least $1
billion a day every day of our lives as a Nation on interest on that
debt.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and other members of the Blue
Dog Coalition have done an admirable job of saying, we have to do
better. And I have to tell my colleagues, I am going to vote for the
Blue Dog budget, but I would have been willing to vote for any budget
that freezes all of the tax cuts, because it is simply not fair.
Two years ago, the gentleman from Iowa and others came to this floor
and said the President's tax breaks would not increase the national
debt. I say to my colleagues they were $802 billion wrong. At what
point do they admit to their mistakes, and at what point do they stop
the bleeding?
The Federal debt is still growing. On February 28, 2003,
the public debt was $6,445,790,102,794.08.
The public debt has increased by more than $802 billion
since Congress passed the President's first budget plan on
May 9, 2001. The debt grew $442,337,086,210.23 in the 12

[[Page H2186]]

months from February 28, 2002 to February 28, 2003.
There is no surplus except in trust funds. In the first
four months of fiscal year 2003, the Treasury reported a
budget deficit of $97.6 billion. However, the trust funds for
Social Security, Medicare, military retirement, and federal
employees retirement collected $90.2 billion in surpluses to
fund future benefits. Outside these trust funds, the federal
government ran a deficit of $187.8 billion.
During fiscal year 2002, Social Security added $159 billion
to its surplus, and the trust funds for Medicare, military
retirement, and federal employee retirement added to total of
$68 billion in surplus funds. Outside those trust funds, the
federal government ran a deficit of $386 billion. The
Congressional Budget Office reported that fiscal year 2002
had the largest percentage decrease in revenues in 56 years
and the largest percentage increase in spending in 20 years.
We spend almost one billion dollars per day on interest.
The Treasury spent $332.5 billion on interest on the debt in
fiscal year 2002. Military spending totaled $332.1 billion,
slightly less than the interest expense, despite a 14 percent
increase to fight the war on terrorism. Medicare spending
totaled $256 billion, $77 billion less than we spent on
interest.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes just to show
my colleague from Mississippi, who does care about this; I do not
begrudge him that at all. I just want to let him know that I also share
in the concern over debt. But since he was slightly partisan about the
issue, let me show my colleagues my chart that shows the difference
between what the Democratic Congresses did versus the Republican
Congresses.
We were the ones who paid down the national debt by almost half a
trillion dollars until we hit this last crisis in 2001 involving the
economy, involving the emergency spending, involving what happened with
homeland security. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues want to raise it to a
partisan level of whose debt is whose, I can show my colleagues a chart
that compares with the gentleman's partisan chart.
What I would rather do is say, look, we are in this together now. I
can show a chart that goes back to Reagan. I can show a chart that goes
back to Clinton. We can have a history lesson here all day long. We can
yell and scream and point fingers at who did what.
Look, we are in a mess. My colleagues did not do it; I did not do it.
I mean, there are three huge factors. We had emergency spending that no
one, no one would have ever anticipated. What a huge economic sucker
gut punch as a result of a recession that was made worse after 2001 and
the terrorist attacks. Was there a component part of that of reducing
taxes? Yes. We disagree. We deliberately reduced taxes at a time of
huge surpluses because, yes, we were paying off the national debt, paid
off over a half a trillion dollars of national debt.
So if my colleagues want to come down and point fingers and talk
about the past, I can show my colleagues Reagan charts and Clinton
charts and things like that.
I think we should talk about the future and what we are going to do
about it. The Democrats have a plan. I compliment that plan, even
though I disagree with it, because it does begin to address those
issues. I have what we believe is a better plan. But let us talk about
our plan and let us look forward. If my colleagues want to continue to
point fingers on how we got here, my colleagues can take up the time
for the substitute to do just that, but I believe we ought to focus on
the future and what we are going to do about it.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, America is at war, and the Blue
Dog budget reflects this new reality.
Our plan strengthens national defense, improves homeland security,
all in the context of a responsible budget.
I have always tried to support my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle when they were right, but today their budget is all wrong.
In an effort to squeeze the President's tax cut package into their
budget, our Republican colleagues have proposed spending levels below
the President's that are highly unlikely to be attainable in the
current climate of war and the need to protect the homeland from
terrorism. And even after cutting the President's budget, the
Republican budget continues to dig the deficit hole deeper, saddling
the taxpayers of this country with a national debt of over $11.5
trillion in 2013. That is an increase of $5.1 trillion in debt in the
next 10 years. That means every American taxpayer will owe
approximately $5,100 every year just to pay the interest on the
national debt. That is a debt tax that cannot be repealed.
In contrast, the Blue Dog budget is a realistic effort to control
runaway Federal spending. It adopts the spending recommendations of our
President. The Republican budget, on the other hand, turns its back on
their own President's spending recommendations for veterans benefits,
Medicare, Social Security, agriculture, and education.
The Blue Dog budget puts us back on a path to a unified balance by
2009 and restores the Social Security lockbox by 2013, a very
significant year, because in that year, for the first time, the Social
Security Administration projects that our government will begin paying
out more each month in benefits than we received in payroll taxes.
By contrast, the Republican budget never restores the Social Security
lockbox, turning their back on a promise made to America's seniors.
Since the Blue Dog budget adopts the total spending levels in the
President's budget, my colleagues may be asking, what does the Blue Dog
budget do differently than the Republican budget? It differs in one
significant respect. It recognizes that long-term national security
requires long-term fiscal responsibility. No nation has ever been
strong and broke.
When our budget policies show that our current tax and spending plans
will lead our Nation to ever-increasing debt, we are weakening our
ability to respond to national security threats. At this very moment,
while young men and women in uniform are courageously fighting the
enemy in the deserts of Iraq, we are charging the financial cost of the
war to the Federal Government's credit card. Who in this Chamber can
explain to the American people why we are charging the cost of this war
to the very generation that is now fighting this war? The Blue Dogs
believe our generation should pay for this war.
Our Republican friends say, deficits no longer matter, and tax cuts
will stimulate the economy, and tax revenues will return. We tried that
in 2001 and what did we get? We saw the economy decline and a $5
trillion surplus disappear into thin air.
The Blue Dogs invite our Republican friends not to bet the whole farm
on an ideologically driven supply-side economic theory, but join us in
accelerating the marginal tax relief, accelerating the child tax
credit, accelerating the elimination of the marriage penalty; but in
the name of fiscal responsibility and national security, we should not
accelerate the tax cuts for those families who have over $170,000 a
year in income. Surely the top 3 percent of America's families will be
proud to share in the patriotism of making this small sacrifice as
those young men and women are doing in Iraq today.
We know that we should not ask those men and women in uniform to pay
for the war we have called on them to fight. I invite all true fiscal
conservatives to support the Blue Dog budget.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding me this time. I will be very brief.
I have a great deal of admiration for the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle), the chairman of the committee. He has brought a budget
resolution to the floor that his leadership has allowed him to bring,
and they think they can get 218 votes out of the Republican caucus.
What is wrong with that? I will tell my colleagues what is wrong with
that and what the American people will say is wrong with that, and that
is that the American people expect this Congress to set its priorities
and to pay for those priorities, and that is something that we have
been unwilling to do in the last couple of years.
What do I mean by that? It means that we have to have discipline on
the spending side. We had that in 1997 when we, in a bipartisan way,
sat down with the administration, which was in Democratic hands, and we
sat down with the Republican-controlled Senate and House and made an
agreement to set spending caps, and we made an

[[Page H2187]]

agreement to get this budget into balance by 2003, and we did it 3
years ahead of schedule.
So I would encourage my colleagues to vote for the Blue Dog budget
and reject the Republican budget.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding me this time.
I want to announce and show the audience here in the Chamber that the
Concord Coalition, which is a national watchdog organization on the
budget, issued a press statement today; and I want to just quote
briefly from that:
``The Blue Dog budget does the best job of balancing short term
concerns with long term fiscal discipline. The Blue Dog budget is
clearly superior to the alternatives. It strikes a prudent balance
among competing priorities by restraining spending and limiting newer
expanded tax cuts to those that have an immediate impact and minimum
long term cost.''

{time} 1800

I hope we will set aside partisanship and listen to a respected,
objective organization, the national coalition, and approve the Blue
Dog budget.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I commend
the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for his commitment to
providing a balanced budget and for acknowledging that debt and
deficits do matter.
The Committee on the Budget passed a budget last week on a party line
vote. At least it was an honest budget. It said that in order for us to
pass huge tax cuts when we are already projecting deficits as far as
the eye can see, we must pass spending cuts. In deference to Mr.
Chairman over here, he would say, find savings in all functions of
government. So please understand it that way.
Over $100 billion below the President's request for discretionary
spending, $262 billion in Medicare cuts are finding savings, $110
billion in Medicaid cuts are savings, $19 billion in agriculture cuts
are savings, $39 billion in government employees' pensions, and $15
billion in veterans benefits at a time that we are going to war, when
our domestic security is threatened and our States and local
governments are in financial crisis. That is the problem with this
budget, Mr. Chairman: The reductions proposed simply are not reality.
Everyone here remembers last year's appropriations process. We just
completed it last month. Congress ended up spending, or appropriating,
$12 billion more than the President's recommended levels. This budget
proposes cuts in the President's austere request. This budget, simply
for that reason, I believe, with all respect to the chairman and the
committee, is not reality.
Look at what has happened the last weeks. In the face of an outright
revolt on many of these cuts, what did the majority do? They restored
some of the so-called spending cuts, or savings, that were found, about
$200 billion in Medicare over 10 years. That is what is going to happen
more and more. That is why I believe we simply cannot meet the spending
levels proposed, with all respect, by the majority's budget.
This budget, because of its emphasis on tax cuts, never, I repeat,
never, gets us to on-budget balance. Instead, it increases gross debt
by over $5 trillion over the next 10 years. The structural deficits in
this budget, Mr. Chairman, will explode gross interest payments to $3.8
trillion during the next decade. Interest, as has already been
mentioned, it is the most wasteful spending we have because it commits
our future generations in this country, our children and grandchildren,
to paying something, a tax, what we call a debt tax.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) indicated that Senator Dole
called this a stealth tax. We call it a debt tax. It is a tax that can
never be repealed because it is the interest of service on the national
debt.
The Blue Dog budget cuts taxes. It provides an income tax cut for all
taxpayers. It immediately eliminates the marriage penalty, accelerates
the child tax credit, and on and on. Listen to the Concord Coalition,
the objective voice here, endorsing the Blue Dog budget.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the budget
of the Blue Dogs, which I think handles our short-term needs and our
long-term concerns.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Iowa for
his hard work on the committee, and to thank him for allowing the Blue
Dogs to make this presentation here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I have waited 24 years for this day to
shuck the tax-and-spend Democratic label and transfer it to the
Republican borrow-and-spend label. I say this with a smile on my face,
and I am one of those that believe when I am pointing the finger of
partisanship, there are always three pointing back at me. I will take
the three best shots of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), but I
insist the gentleman takes my one at this time.
The gentleman said we have a difference between our two philosophies
today. This chart shows it. Our budget is the green budget. The yellow
budget I ran against in 1978 because I thought deficit spending was
bad. I voted for the Reagan tax cuts; and this is what we got,
following the same economic theory that we once again are being asked
to support today.
I am for the green. The Blue Dog budget will accomplish that based on
the estimates. The gentleman's budget today will keep us in Social
Security for the remainder of the 10 years the gentleman is talking
about.
I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), as the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill) did. The budget he brought out of committee was an
honest budget. It told this conference and this Congress and the
American people that if they want tax cuts, they have to pay for them.
They have got to do the spending cuts that they suggested.
However, the gentleman's own conference said, no. As I told the
gentleman privately, and I will say publicly, if the gentleman would
reconcile the cuts in a public manner on this floor first and then go
to the tax cuts, he would have some support on this side. But I am
skeptical, when they bring a budget that even their own conference will
not support to the floor on the spending cuts, but yet we are going to
have a tax cut on the floor in a very short period of time, that this
is what we are going to get.
Our budget balances without using Social Security by 2013. As the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) said a moment ago, it is immoral
what this Congress, these last few Congresses, are doing to our
children and grandchildren.
When we talk about spending cuts, I have heard it explained that in
the agricultural function it is just 1 percent. But let me remind all
of us, we took 2 years writing the farm bill that passed with two-
thirds support, equally divided Democrats and Republicans, and the
President signed it. We stayed within the budget that they asked us to
last year.
Anyone that suggests we can make the cuts that the gentleman is
suggesting, assuming that it passes, without reopening the farm bill
and rewriting it, is totally misinformed as to what the facts are
regarding the authorizing of various programs.
I find it very interesting that today in the Committee on the
Judiciary we were supposed to have passing out a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget. As many know, I am for it. I am a
cosponsor of it. One of the happiest days in my life was when we passed
it on this floor; one of the saddest days was when it went down by one
vote in the Senate.
Had that passed in the Senate, they could not bring their budget to
the floor today. The only budget we will vote on today is this budget
right here, the blue one, the Blue Dog line, that shows that we will
balance without using Social Security in 2013. They

[[Page H2188]]

could not do it had we had a constitutional restraint. Yet some on the
gentleman's side have the audacity to suggest that the budget is a good
one; but yet we want to have a constitutional amendment to require us
to do what we are not willing to do when we have a chance of doing it.
In 1999 the Republican leadership issued a statement pledging to
protect the Social Security surplus: ``As leaders of the House of
Representatives, we will not schedule any legislation that spends one
penny of the Social Security trust fund. This leadership is committed
to ending the 30-year raid on seniors and paying down the debt.''
We could not help 9-11-01, and we cannot help the fact that our
economy has gone south, but we can stop digging the hole deeper as of
today. That is what the Blue Dog budget does. It is the only budget
that stops digging the hole deeper.
Now, one area we cut below the President, and our spending levels, I
repeat, in this budget we do not spend one penny more than President
Bush asked us to spend, one penny; but there is one area we want to cut
below the President. We want to cut $420 billion out of the President's
budget and somewhat less out of the chairman's budget for interest on
the national debt. They can bring out all of the blue books, they have
been there when the gentleman's party has been in charge, and some of
us on this side would like to work with them. But they constantly and
consistently deny us that opportunity, which, if they pass their budget
today, once again, they deny us the opportunity.
We had a better budget 2 years ago. The economic situation of this
country would not be as bad. I ask Members to support the Blue Dog
budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. I have enormous respect for the
gentleman from Texas and for my friends for writing a budget, because
writing a budget in Washington, D.C. for the Federal Government is not
maybe the most challenging job in Washington, but it does have its
moments of challenges.
Probably one of the biggest challenges in writing a budget, as my
friends know, is when we have to explain to politicians who get elected
by saying yes that sometimes we have to say no, or sometimes we have to
do things that are difficult.
There is no question that when I wrote the original draft of this
budget, I asked my colleagues to do something that was difficult. It
maybe was more difficult than I had either the right to ask or the
ability to ask; but I asked it, not because I thought it was easy, but
because I thought it was important for us to at least begin the debate.
Particularly in Medicare, that is a debate that I recognize probably
as being difficult maybe more than most Members because I have spent
the last 12 years being stung by attacks from opponents back home who,
in years where we did nothing to Medicare, were able to come up with
phantom votes here and there suggesting that somehow, again, as a
Republican, I think maybe just because I registered to vote as a
Republican, that somehow I was cutting Medicare. It must be something
that is just automatic when you become a Republican, it seems, these
days.
But it could not be further from the truth. When it comes to our
budgets in Medicare and so many of these programs, as my friends know,
particularly since 1998, we have just been spending money around here
like it is going out of style in every category. We almost cannot name
a category that has gone down by any significant portion over the last
5 years, in particular, since we got the balance.
So it was not so much that I was saying cut, but I was saying slow
down. That is all I was trying to say was slow down. That is what I was
trying to say in Medicare was slow down. We had put $400 billion in. I
asked them to look for that waste within Medicare. We know it is there.
I have three great examples that came out of those blue books we were
talking about.
The Medicare program pays as much as eight times, just think about
this, I would say to my friends, eight times the cost of any other
Federal agency when we pay for the same drugs and medical supplies. I
do not know, maybe double would be a reasonable level; but eight times
does not make much sense to me.
Medicare provides overpayments of $12.1 billion in 1 year. All right?
That is just another example.
In 2002, it was estimated that improper, and that is in addition to
overpayments, we are talking about just plain improper, fraudulent
payments under Medicare were estimated at $13 billion. Let me quickly
do the math: 13, 12, that is 25. We do not even know what the cost of
the drugs are, but that is $25 billion in 1 year, as an example.
I do not know about the other Members, but that pays for a lot of
prescription drugs for seniors. Just in the first year of the drug
benefit that almost all of us support, we are only talking about $7
billion as a drug benefit. That is just the first year of the phase-in.
That is three times, almost four times, the amount of the initial drug
benefit we waste in the Medicare program. That is before we even talk
about reimbursements.
My friend, the gentleman from Texas, and I have been laboring on the
Rural Health Care Coalition since I think the day the gentleman walked
in this place, and certainly the day I walked in. Medicare is not
serving our seniors because of a crazy reimbursement system that has
been out there. But we come down here to the well and we say, oh, gosh,
do not touch that, it is Medicare.
Heaven forbid we would try and do something around here in any of
these programs in order to try to control them, because around here in
Washington our level of compassion and concern has been equal to the
amount of money we are willing to put into the program.
So instead of saying to Medicare, the Defense Department,
agriculture, I do not care what it is, instead of saying, where did
that $13 billion go; we are not going to give it to you again next year
until you find it, instead, what we say is, oh, quick, quick, let us
pass a budget that puts in $400 billion more.
Let us hurry up and do that because heaven forbid we would look at a
senior citizen straight in the eye and say, Do you know what? The
program is not working as well as it should. It is not doing the job we
promised; it is wasting money.
So that is what I was asking for. The gentleman is right, I did not
get the votes for that. We will live to have that discussion another
day because my guess is that in order for the actual bill to come to
the floor, we are going to have to make some of those adjustments.
I could go on. That is the most politically sensitive one in the
bunch. I could go on and on through less politically sensitive issues.
But what I am asking us to do, and it is article 1 of the Constitution
that I believe gives us that responsibility. The gentleman showed a
chart that defines it by President. I could show a chart, and I know we
are talking about the partisan jabs, I could show a chart that showed
the exact same figures but showed them under Republican and Democratic
Congresses.

{time} 1815

It does not matter, as I said to my friend from Mississippi, it does
not matter what happened in the past. It matters what we look to do in
the future. My colleagues have got a plan. We disagree with it because
it does not, we do not believe, do the one thing that we believe can
help us here the most, and that is stimulate the growth in the economy
that brings in so much of the revenue that we need.
The second thing it really does not do, and we disagree with the
President on this, mostly not because we disagree with the President,
but because it is our job to control spending. If we do not do it by
the time the bill gets to his desk, it is not going to get done, and so
that is why we asked for the waste, fraud and abuse within these
reconciliation instructions.
Last but not least, and I think my friend wants us to yield, the
balanced budget amendment, and I am a cosponsor and have been and voted
for it. The one problem with a balanced budget amendment, of course, is
it takes about 8 years to get it into place, and what we said in 1995
and what we are both saying here today in a bipartisan way, regardless
of our plan, let us just do it. Forget about the amendment for a
second. Let us do it. Let us actually go in

[[Page H2189]]

and balance it as opposed to just saying that we ought to have a
constitutional amendment to do it.
The one thing the balanced budget amendment does provide is an
exception. Two things actually. One is national emergency, and
certainly I think September 11, obviously we in a bipartisan way agree
that that is a national emergency; and the second is war, and clearly,
we are in a war. So while I support that, I think we ought to just do
it.
We put ourselves on a path under both of our plans, but we believe
ours is a better path, and that is the reason.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would just say there are 35 Blue Dogs
that stand ready to work with the gentleman's side on every one of the
issues in the blue books that my colleague had up. If we would have the
same spirit on those issues that we have had by allowing us to have
this 1 hour this year, which we were not allowed to have last year, we
would have made a lot of progress on this.
The fact that my colleagues were kind enough this year to allow the
Blue Dogs to have 1 hour of debate so we can have this discussion, we
do think it is a better plan, but it is up to the will of the majority
of the House as to whether our plan is better than my colleagues. We
will stand by the will of the majority.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his
comments.
As I say, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's and the Blue Dogs'
substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 254, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 78]

AYES--174

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Ballance
Becerra
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Kind
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wu
Wynn

NOES--254

Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Buyer
Gephardt
Hyde
Reynolds
Thornberry
Udall (CO)
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). The Chair
advises Members there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1838

Messrs. EVERETT, TURNER of Ohio, FRANKS of Arizona, FERGUSON, ENGLISH
and GILCHREST changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GUTIERREZ, EDWARDS, COSTELLO and Mrs. BONO changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, on House rollcall vote 78, on
the Hill Substitute to H. Con. Res. 95, I mistakenly cast my vote as a
``no''. I intended to vote ``aye'' and support the Hill substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 2 printed in House Report 108-44.

Part B Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr.
Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Part B Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute
offered by Mr. Toomey:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2002.

The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004 is hereby established and that
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and
2005 through 2013 are hereby set forth.

[[Page H2190]]

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2003 through 2013.
(1) Federal Revenues.--For the purpose of enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal Year 2003: $1,323,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,340,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,504,267,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,642,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,768,142,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,872,740,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,985,385,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,095,867,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,198,796,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,324,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,460,635,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be reduced are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $36,105,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $126,232,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $112,759,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $97,943,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $85,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $90,237,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $92,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $97,175,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $228,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $325,353,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $343,575,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $1,790,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,811,096,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,888,755,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,961,833,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,019,225,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,072,926,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,144,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,209,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,297,614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,371,644,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,463,897,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $1,776,895,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,824,619,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,880,352,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,931,043,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,979,840,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,033,924,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,110,335,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,178,746,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,272,784,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,333,379,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,433,558,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $453,166,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $484,481,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $376,085,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $288,314,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $211,698,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $161,184,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $124,950,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $82,879,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $73,988,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $8,953,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $-27,077,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $6,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $7,242,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $7,740,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $8,203,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $8,636,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,047,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $9,462,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $9,856,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $10,266,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $10,643,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $11,010,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $3,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $4,157,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $4,498,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $4,579,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $4,615,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $4,631,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $4,604,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $4,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $4,480,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $4,364,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

[[Page H2191]]

(B) Outlays, $30,274,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $30,940,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,199,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $31,448,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,331,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,224,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,706,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $33,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $34,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,757,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $35,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,343,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,615,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $37,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,590,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $24,418,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $23,966,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,356,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $26,144,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,194,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $25,799,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,987,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $25,113,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,415,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $24,035,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,523,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,239,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,066,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $23,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,496,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $22,985,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $22,651,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,627,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,433,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,388,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $8,812,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,881,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $7,401,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,587,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $8,633,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,059,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $8,145,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,130,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $9,166,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $8,628,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,355,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $8,763,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $8,737,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,208,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $8,939,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,029,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $9,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,840,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $64,091,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,847,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $65,416,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,832,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $65,785,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $66,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,369,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $67,693,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,293,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $68,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $69,825,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,604,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $71,016,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,021,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $72,723,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,573,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $74,432,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,228,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $76,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,924,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12,251,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,994,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $14,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,923,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $14,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,990,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $14,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,120,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $14,968,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $15,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $15,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,802,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $16,075,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,146,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $16,467,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,524,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $16,857,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,892,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $17,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,288,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $86,169,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,340,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $84,744,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,702,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $84,376,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,593,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $86,663,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,632,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $88,640,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,408,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $90,799,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $88,343,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $92,377,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,470,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $93,915,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,151,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $95,812,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $97,615,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,694,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $99,516,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,583,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $221,878,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $218,021,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $235,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $235,408,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $248,561,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $265,324,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $264,811,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $284,054,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $283,181,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $303,513,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $302,371,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $323,793,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $322,510,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $345,221,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $343,935,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $370,172,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $368,888,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $394,838,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $393,580,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $423,165,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $421,858,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $248,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,434,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $261,298,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $261,621,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $275,475,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $278,402,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $312,447,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $309,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $332,020,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $332,299,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $352,392,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $352,287,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $372,165,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $371,929,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $392,052,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $392,309,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $420,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $423,880,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $453,915,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $450,312,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $490,497,000,000.

[[Page H2192]]

(B) Outlays, $490,754,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $326,588,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $334,373,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $315,939,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $321,576,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $326,452,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $329,892,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $332,440,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $334,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $337,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $339,157,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $345,904,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $347,149,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $354,493,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $355,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $362,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $363,059,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $376,326,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $377,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $379,667,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $380,403,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $393,564,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,420,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $13,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $14,223,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $16,451,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,451,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $17,975,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,975,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,827,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,827,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,982,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $24,357,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,357,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $28,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $31,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,450,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $34,481,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,481,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $57,597,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $60,710,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,692,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $65,827,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,329,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $63,976,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,720,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $62,320,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,014,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $65,655,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,502,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $66,888,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,644,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $68,158,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,874,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $72,646,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,350,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $69,805,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,416,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $74,452,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,132,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $38,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,712,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $37,310,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,895,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $37,673,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,003,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $37,581,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,026,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $37,963,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,859,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $38,880,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,633,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $39,839,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $40,884,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,696,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $42,152,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,847,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $43,451,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,124,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $44,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,464,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $18,178,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $19,768,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,586,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $20,025,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,213,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $19,654,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $19,955,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,760,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,552,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $20,168,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,761,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,572,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,127,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,294,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,826,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $22,039,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,829,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,323,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $239,741,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $239,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $256,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $256,367,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $301,918,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $301,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $336,172,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $336,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $355,442,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $355,442,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $368,985,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $368,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $379,976,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $379,976,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $387,382,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $387,382,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $394,728,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,728,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $401,288,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $401,288,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $403,084,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $403,084,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$25,986,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$26,781,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$58,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$61,030,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$103,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$106,165,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$134,939,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$137,938,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$172,108,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$174,839,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$184,626,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$187,639,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$197,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$200,631,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$213,132,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$216,854,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$227,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$230,847,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$244,708,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$248,504,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$41,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$41,104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$42,894,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$42,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,598,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,598,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,459,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,459,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$51,535,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$51,535,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:

[[Page H2193]]

(A) New budget authority, -$53,540,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$53,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,609,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,685,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,685,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$56,841,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$56,841,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$59,025,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,025,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$61,229,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$61,229,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submission Providing for Economic Growth and Tax
Simplification and Fairness.--
(1) In general.--Not later than April 11, 2003, the House
committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their
recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After
receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the
Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill
carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive
revision.
(2) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in law within its
jurisdiction sufficient to--
(1) reduce the total level of revenues by not more than:
$35,420,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $126,232,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004, $512,195,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2004 through 2008, and $1,599,943,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013; and
(2) increase the level of direct spending for that
committee by $4,380,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2003,
$1,111,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004,
$17,393,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2004 through 2008, and $23,096,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to increase the
level of direct spending for that committee by $3,600,000,000
in new budget authority for fiscal year 2003 and outlays
flowing therefrom.
(b) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste,
Fraud, and Abuse in Mandatory Programs.--
(1) In general.--Not later than July 18, 2003, the House
committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their
recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After
receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the
Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill
carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive
revision.
(2) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on
Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $1,409,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $17,622,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $50,718,000,000 in
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes
in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
level of direct spending for that committee by $613,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $8,276,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and
$25,665,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2004 through 2013.
(C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $3,160,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $80,495,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $292,506,000,000 in
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(D) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee
on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $30,000,000 in new budget
authority for fiscal year 2004, $390,000,000 in new budget
authority for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008,
and $381,000,000 in new budget authority for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(E) Committee on government reform.--The House Committee on
Government Reform shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $2,518,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $33,042,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $104,405,000,000 in
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(F) Committee on house administration.--The House Committee
on House Administration shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $11,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $87,000,000 in outlays for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $241,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(G) Committee on international relations.--The House
Committee on International Relations shall report changes in
laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level
of direct spending for that committee by $367,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 2004, $4,124,000,000 in outlays for
the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and
$12,183,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2004 through 2013.
(H) Committee on the Judiciary.--The House Committee on the
Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to
reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by
$201,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $2,317,000,000
in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008,
and $6,548,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2004 through 2013.
(I) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on
Resources shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to
reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by
$91,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $1,095,000,000
in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008,
and $3,008,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2004 through 2013.
(J) Committee on science.--The House Committee on Science
shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that
provide direct spending sufficient to reduce the level of
direct spending for that committee by $2,000,000 in outlays
for fiscal year 2004, $19,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $40,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(K) Committee on small business.--The House Committee on
Small Business shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to
reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by $0
in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $0 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $0 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(L) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall
report changes in laws within its jurisdiction that provide
direct spending sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $438,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2004, $5,563,000,000 in outlays for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $16,104,000,000 in
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(M) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to
reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by
$1,056,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004,
$13,449,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2004 through 2008, and $39,848,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
(N) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to
reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by
$8,514,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004,
$73,579,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2004 through 2008, and $292,553,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

Subtitle A--Reserve Funds for Legislation Assumed in Budget Aggregates

SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICAID.

the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may increase
allocations of new budget authority and outlays for that
committee (and make other appropriate changes in budgetary
aggregates) by the amount provided by that measure for that
purpose, but not to exceed $3,258,000,000 in new budget
authority and outlays for fiscal year 2004 and $8,944,000,000
in new budget authority and outlays for the period of fiscal
years 2004 through 2008.

SEC. 302. RESERVE FUND FOR BIOSHIELD.

[[Page H2194]]

outlays flowing therefrom and $3,418,000,000 in new budget
authority for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008
and outlays flowing therefrom or, in the case of a measure
described in paragraph (2), not to exceed $890,000,000 in new
budget authority for fiscal year 2004 and outlays flowing
therefrom. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the total
such revision for fiscal year 2004 may not exceed
$890,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays flowing
therefrom.

SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR RETIREMENT SECURITY.

Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto
is offered (in the House), or a conference report thereon is
submitted that enhances retirement security through
structural programmatic reform and the creation of personal
retirement accounts, provided that such accounts are funded
from the taxes currently collected for the purpose of the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Program, the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget may--
(1) increase the appropriate allocations and aggregates of
new budget authority and outlays by the amount of new budget
authority provided by such measure (and outlays flowing
therefrom) for that purpose;
(2) reduce the revenue aggregates by the amount of the
revenue loss resulting from that measure for that purpose;
and
(3) make all other appropriate and conforming adjustments.
Subtitle B--Implementation of Reserve Funds

SEC. 311. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE
HOUSE.

(a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported
in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation
or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto.
(2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless
specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given
by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
(b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may
be provided for fiscal year 2005 for programs, projects,
activities or accounts identified in the joint explanatory
statement of managers accompanying this resolution under the
heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in
an aggregate amount not to exceed $23,178,000,000 in new
budget authority.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority
in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations
or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2004 that first
becomes available for any fiscal year after 2004.

SEC. 402. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

SEC. 403. ACTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(B)(1) OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

(a) Compliance.--When complying with Section 302(b)(1) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee on
Appropriations of each House shall consult with the Committee
on Appropriations of the other House to ensure that the
allocation of budget outlays and new budget authority among
each Committee's subcommittees are identical.
(b) Report.--The Committee on Appropriations of each House
shall report to its House when it determines that the report
made by the Committee pursuant to Section 301(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the report made by the
Committee on Appropriations of the other House pursuant to
the same provision contain identical allocations of budget
outlays and new budget authority among each Committee's
subcommittees.
(c) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report providing
new discretionary budget authority for Fiscal Year 2004
allocated to the Committee on Appropriations unless and until
the Committee on Appropriations of that House has made the
report required under paragraph (b) of this Section.

SEC. 404. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING
FROM REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING
REVENUES.

(a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion or conference report, including measures
filed in compliance with Section 4 of this Concurrent
Resolution, that propose to change federal revenues the
impact of such measure on federal revenues shall be
calculated by the Joint Committee on Taxation in a manner
that takes into account:
(1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on:
i. Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for
the Gross Domestic Product;
ii. Total Domestic Employment;
iii. Gross Private Domestic Investment;
iv. General Price Index;
v. Interest Rates; and
vi. Other economic variables
(2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in
economic variables analyzed under subpart (1) of this
paragraph.
(b) the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make
any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order
to conform this Concurrent Resolution with the determinations
made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this Section.

SEC. 405. PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND COMPLIANCE WITH
SECTION 201(A) OF THIS CONCURRENT RESOLUTION.

When reporting to the House reconciliation measures in
compliance with Section 201(a) of this Concurrent Resolution,
the Ways and Means Committee shall not report legislation,
which:
(1) proposes to provide a graduated or phased-in reduction
over time in:
(a) Individual income tax rates,
(b) Corporate tax rates, or
(c) The rate of taxes collected on the proceeds from
investments, including taxes collected on capital gains; or
(2) conditions any changes in tax law upon the achievement
of some level of:
(a) Federal Revenue,
(b) Federal Surplus, or
(c) Level of Public Debt.

SEC. 406. PROHIBITION ON USING REVENUE INCREASES TO COMPLY
WITH BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.

(a) For the purpose of enforcing this Concurrent Resolution
in the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall not take into account the provisions of any piece of
legislation which propose to increase revenue or offsetting
collections if the net effect of the bill is to increase the
level of revenue or offsetting collections beyond the level
assumed in this Concurrent Resolution.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this Section shall not apply to any
provision of a piece of legislation that proposes a new or
increased fee for the receipt of a defined benefit or service
(including insurance coverage) by the person or entity paying
the fee.

SEC. 407. CRITERIA FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO ALLOCATIONS AND
AGGREGATES FROM USE OF THE ``EMERGENCY''
DESIGNATION.

(A) Guidance.--In making a designation of a provision of
legislation as an emergency requirement under section
251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, the committee report and any
statement of managers accompanying that legislation shall
analyze whether a proposed emergency requirement meets the
definition of an ``emergency'' set out in paragraph (b) of
this Section.
(b) The term ``emergency'' means a situation that--
(1) requires new budget authority and outlays (or new
budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom) for the
preventions or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or
property, or a threat to national security; and
(2) is unanticipated, which means that the underlying
situation is sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary.
(c) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution, or
conference report that contains an emergency designation
under section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 unless the proposed
emergency requirement meets the definition of an
``emergency'' set out in paragraph (b) of this Section.
(d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall
not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a
rule or order that waives the application of paragraph (c) of
this section.

[[Page H2195]]

(e) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As
disposition of a point of order under paragraph (c) or
paragraph (d) of this section, the Chair shall put the
question of consideration with respect to the proposition
that is the subject of the point of order. A question of
consideration under this section shall be debatable for 10
minutes by the Member initiating the point of order and for
10 minutes by an opponent of the point of order, but shall
otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one
that the House adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole
rise, as the case may be.
(f) Effect on Amendment in Order as Original Text in the
House.-- The disposition of the question of consideration
under this section with respect to a bill or joint resolution
shall be considered also to determine the question of
consideration under this subsection with respect to an
amendment made in order as original text.

TITLE V--SENSES OF CONGRESS

SEC. 501. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN
PROGRAMS TO ACHIEVE BUDGET GOALS.

(a) Congress finds that--
(1) The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year
2004 should achieve the following key goals:
(A) ensure adequate funding is available for essential
government programs, in particular
(B) defense and homeland security;
(C) Foster greater economic growth and increased domestic
employment by eliminating those provisions in the tax code
(these provisions include, but are not limited to, the double
taxation of corporate dividends, the taxation of capital
gains, the limitations on expensing, the phased-in rather
than immediate reduction of personal income tax rates, and
the alternative minimum tax) that discourage economic growth
and job creation;
(D) Bring the Federal budget back into balance as soon as
possible; (2) The Federal Government spends billions of
dollars each year on programs and projects that are of
marginal value to the country as a whole. (3) Funding for
these lower priority programs should be viewed in light of
the goals of this Concurrent Resolution and whether or not
continued funding of these programs advances or hinders the
achievement of these goals.
(4) This Concurrent Resolution assumes that funding for
many lower priority programs will be reduced or eliminated in
order to increase funding for defense and homeland security
while at the same time controlling overall spending.
(b) It is the Senate of Congress that the following
programs should be eliminated:
(1) Title X Family Planning;
(2) Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
(3) National Endowment for the Arts;
(4) Legal Services Corporation; and
(5) Advanced Technology Program.

SEC. 502. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE ABOLISHMENT OF
OBSOLETE AGENCIES AND THE FEDERAL SUNSET ACT OF
2003.

(a) Congress finds that--
(1) The National Commission on the Public Service's recent
report, ``Urgent Business For America: Revitalizing The
Federal Government For The 21st Century,'' states that
government missions are so widely dispersed among so many
agencies that no coherent management is possible. The report
also states that fragmentation leaves many gaps,
inconsistencies, and inefficiencies in government oversight
and results in an unacceptable level of public health
protection.
(2) According to the Commission, there are: more than 35
food safety laws administered by 12 different federal
agencies; 541 clean air, water, and waste programs in 29
federal agencies; 50 different programs to aid the homeless
in eight different federal agencies; and 27 teen pregnancy
programs operated in nine federal agencies; and 90 early
childhood programs scattered among 11 federal agencies.
(3) According to the General Accounting Office, there are
163 programs with a job training or employment function, 64
welfare programs of a similar nature, and more than 500 urban
aid programs.
(4) GAO also indicates 13 agencies coordinate 342 economic
development programs, but there is very little or no
coordination between them. This situation had created a
bureaucracy so complex that many local communities stop
applying for economic assistance. At the same time, the
General Accounting Office reports that these programs often
serve as nothing more than funnels for pork, have ``no
significant effect'' on the economy, and cost as much as
$307,000 to create each job.
(5) In 1976, Colorado became the first state to implement a
sunset mechanism. Today, about half of the nation's states
have some sort of sunset mechanism in effect to monitor their
legislative branch agencies. On the Federal level, the United
States Senate in 1978 overwhelmingly passed legislation to
sunset most of the federal government agencies by a vote of
87-1.
(6) In Texas, ``sunsetting'' has eliminated 44 agencies and
saved the taxpayers $720 million compared with expenditures
of $16.94 million for the Sunset Commission. Based on these
estimates, for every dollar spent on the Sunset process, the
State has received about $42.50 in return.
(b) It is the Sense of Congress that
The House of Representatives should adopt H.R. 1227, The
Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act of
2003.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time in
opposition be divided evenly between the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) and myself.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object, I am completely agreeable. That procedure has been our
custom and practice in the past.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to myself.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending the gentleman from
Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for the outstanding work the gentleman has done.
The gentleman has worked very hard. Our committee has worked very hard,
and the budget is a good budget. But I believe the alternative budget
that I am going to describe right now and that the Republican Study
Committee is putting forward is a better budget. I want to go over the
highlights of the differences and engage in this discussion about the
alternatives.
Let us look at the major differences. The big difference between the
Republican Study Committee budget and the committee budget are three.
First, we provide more tax relief. We provide more tax relief than
the committee budget does, we provide more tax relief than any of the
alternative budgets do.
Number two, we actually cut some spending. Now the committee's budget
cuts the rate of growth of spending. Our budget actually cuts
nondefense, not homeland security discretionary spending.
The third thing is we run smaller deficits and we get back to a
balanced budget faster than any other budget, including faster than the
Blue Dog budget that we just heard a lot of discussion about. We do it
in 4 years, faster than any other, and that is not accounting for the
faster economic growth that would result from our budget package. Let
me run through these three areas.
First on the tax front, we recognize in this budget that we are still
overtaxed. The fact is that Federal taxes consume about 21 percent of
national income, and total taxes from all government in our country is
over a third of national income. This is well above the post-war
average high. The fact is we are not undertaxed; we are still
overtaxed. Many of our constituents are facing tax increases at the
State and local levels. They need to have that off-set, and we can do
that in our budget.
Our budget accommodates the President's entire growth package; and
that is critical because we need to get this economy growing again, so
we accommodate the elimination of the double taxation of dividends.
This would end a great inequity in our tax system, a bias in our
current code, a bias that, frankly, falls disproportionately on older
Americans; and it would also stimulate economic growth.

{time} 1845

If we follow the wisdom of the President's proposal and eliminate the
double taxation on dividends, it has a number of positive effects for
our economy. It would immediately result in higher equity prices, which
is a good start. The current tax also increases the cost of capital. By
lowering the cost of capital, we encourage capital formation. It also
would reduce the current distortion of the allocation of capital.
Abolishing the double taxation will over time release billions of
dollars for more productive investment.
The bottom line is the President's proposal encourages saving and
investment and capital formation, and that helps sustain economic
growth. That is why we need to do it.

[[Page H2196]]

We also need to accelerate the phase-in of marginal tax rate
reductions. When you lower marginal income tax rates, you increase the
incentive to save and work and invest, and when you increase the
incentives, you get more savings and work and investment. If we delay
this any further, we just postpone the beneficial effects.
In our budget, we accommodate the President's entire tax relief
package. Then we do something more. We do not specify exactly what that
would have to be, but, Mr. Chairman, it would be large enough to
accommodate a 50 percent reduction in capital gains rates, and that
would also significantly encourage economic growth. That kind of
capital formation is a precondition for strong economic growth.
On the spending side, as I said earlier, ours is the only budget that
makes some real cuts in spending. On the discretionary side, we do not
cut defense spending. We use the same number that the President has
proposed and the same number that the committee has proposed. We
recognize this obligation. We recognize that we are at war. We do not
cut homeland security funding. On the mandatory spending side, we do
not touch Social Security at all, we make no changes, and we do not
actually cut anything in mandatory spending, although we do restrain
the rate of growth. What we actually do cut is in nondefense,
nonhomeland security discretionary spending.
Why is it important to get this spending under control? Because, Mr.
Chairman, total government spending is the real measure of the burden
that the government imposes on our economy. More than deficits, more
than the debt, it is the total amount of money that the government
sucks out of the private sector, whether it does it by borrowing or
whether it does it by confiscating people's money, that is the measure
of the misallocation of capital. We all know there are a lot of vital
programs that have to be funded, but on the margin we know that this
spending occurs through a political process where Members are spending
money to try to get reelected. It is not the allocation of capital that
individual consumers and businesses would allocate for stronger
economic growth.
The other problem with too much spending is the enormous waste. We
have heard a discussion about that earlier, but the government cannot
even account for over $17 billion in spending in 2001. The Federal
Government acknowledges $20 billion in overpayments. The list of
ridiculous misspent money, missing money, overpayments is a very long
and a very embarrassing list, frankly. We are never going to wring that
waste out of government until we impose some spending discipline.
The fact is government Federal spending, discretionary spending,
total spending has been growing at several times the rate of inflation,
and now is the time to rein that in. If we cannot rein that in now, Mr.
Chairman, when can we rein that in?
The net budgetary effects of our budget is greater tax relief, modest
spending discipline, and as a result we run smaller deficits for
shorter periods of time, and we get back to a balance faster than any
other budget proposal.
I heard the Blue Dogs come down on this floor and talk about how much
they want to balance this budget, how quickly they want to do that, why
they want to do that. I am glad to hear that. I look forward to their
voting for our budget because it gets to a balance faster than any
others.
The other point I would make is that there can be no doubt that our
combination of lower taxes and less spending would lead to stronger
economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on
Government Reform.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me start by commending
the gentleman from Iowa. It is always a tough duty to try to carry a
budget through the House.
I have a couple of questions. Can the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget confirm that the reconciliation instructions clarify how the
Committee on Government Reform will be credited with savings resulting
from legislation that it submits to the Committee on the Budget?
Mr. NUSSLE. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Does this language ensure that the
Committee on Government Reform will receive full credit for any savings
it reports that are consistent with its reconciliation instructions?
Mr. NUSSLE. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Can the gentleman confirm that the
Committee on Government Reform may write legislation that also achieves
significant savings in discretionary programs?
Mr. NUSSLE. That is correct.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. And can the chairman also confirm that it
is possible to meet the savings targets within the budget resolution
without making any changes to Federal retirement annuities paid to
participants in the Civil Service Retirement System, FERS, the Federal
Employees Retirement System, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program?
Mr. NUSSLE. I believe that is correct.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the chairman for that
clarification.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, my constituents find it very difficult to
understand why at these times that we have economic uncertainty, that
we are at war, we have large deficits and we are considering a reckless
new tax cut. This amendment is even worse than the underlying bill. I
oppose the underlying budget, and I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, budgets speak to choice. What is important? I am
frustrated with this new proposition that every budget priority should
take a back seat to tax cuts. What is more important, funding for
homeland security or tax cuts? Fiscal responsibility or tax cuts?
Protecting Social Security or tax cuts? Prescription drugs for our
seniors or tax cuts? Adequate funding for veterans' health and
disability benefits or tax cuts? Keeping children nutrition programs or
tax cuts? Adequate funding for education or tax cuts?
At a time that we are facing large deficits, it seems to me that we
could find a lot better use for $1.3 trillion for tax cuts that
primarily benefit the wealthy.
This plan digs a deeper hole in our Federal budget. We should treat
the Federal budget with no less consideration than we would treat our
own family home budget. This budget digs a deep hole in our Federal
budget. It cuts vital programs that help the people in our society we
have pledged to assist, our veterans, our children, our parents. It
puts more pressure on our States and cities who are already under the
fiscal gun, and it shows exactly the wrong kind of budget priorities.
Our budget should speak to our priorities. We must do better. We
should approve the budget resolution offered by the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) that is more fiscally responsible, provides
for a modest tax cut targeted to stimulate immediate growth in our
economy, and provides adequate resources for prescription drugs for our
seniors, education for our children, and homeland defense for all
Americans.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment and the
underlying budget resolution and support the Spratt amendment.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lend my strong support to
the Republican Study Committee budget. As chairman of the RSC, I am
very proud of this budget that we have produced, and I want to thank
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for all his hard work on
this. It reins in the astronomical spending increases we have had over
the past few years and brings us back to balance in just 4 years. No
other budget achieves balance as quickly as this one does.
When I came to Washington as part of the revolutionary class of 1995,
we were determined and extremely serious to balance the budget and get
us back on track, which we did. We were successful in doing that for
the first few years, but lately we have presided over

[[Page H2197]]

some of the biggest increases in spending in U.S. history. In the last
7 years, nondefense discretionary spending has grown 66 percent. The
fiscal year 2003 budget alone was a 9 percent increase in discretionary
spending from the year before. I do not know of any family's budget in
this country that has had the good fortune to increase 9 percent in
2003. So why should the Federal Government continue spending increases
in this amount?
This RSC budget holds the government to responsible increases that
will not grow faster than inflation or the family budget. Our budget
proposal achieves a 1 percent savings by looking for waste, fraud and
abuse and eliminating it from the Federal Government. That is only 1
penny out of every dollar. We hear folks continue to say it is
impossible to find that amount of money, that amount of waste, in the
government.
I would like Members to take a look at this chart. Thirty-five food
safety laws administered by 12 different agencies; 541 clean air,
water, waste programs; 50 programs for the homeless in 8 different
Federal agencies; 163 different job training employment programs; 64
welfare programs; 500 urban aid. It goes on. You can see for yourself
there is a lot there that could be simplified. Most estimates indicate
there are tens of billions of dollars wasted every year. Last year
alone, there were estimated to be $13.3 billion in improper payments
under Medicare.
It is time Congress gets serious about reining in wasteful spending
and getting our budget under control. That is what we were sent here to
do. That is what the American people expect us to do. They want us to
stop the business as usual and stop the excuses.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hastert was allowed to speak out of
order.)

Notice of Iraq War Briefings

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, for the information of all Members, I want
to report that there will be two classified Members-only briefings
regarding Iraq tonight and tomorrow. First, tonight, at 7:40 p.m.,
Secretary Rumsfeld will brief all Members in the Armed Services
Committee hearing room located in 2118 of the Rayburn Office Building.
In addition, tomorrow, Friday, at 10:45 a.m., officials from the
Department of Defense, the Department of State and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff will provide this briefing also. This briefing will take place at
the 2118 Rayburn location as well.
I encourage all Members to attend both these important briefings,
tonight and tomorrow, so that they have the latest information prior to
returning to their districts.
Members will be alerted to any further details via the e-mail whip
notice system.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his hard work on
the budget.
As the gentleman knows, the manager's amendment on the budget
resolution includes reconciliation instructions to the Committee on
Agriculture for savings in mandatory programs. To clarify for my
colleagues and farmers and ranchers who follow this process, I would
like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget
about the reconciliation instructions.
Mr. NUSSLE. If the gentleman will yield, I would be happy to respond.
Mr. OSBORNE. It is my understanding that the Committee on the Budget
will work with the Committee on Agriculture to identify specific
proposals that eliminate waste, fraud and inefficiencies so that any
reductions do not come from farm programs and the crop insurance
program. Is that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget's
understanding?
Mr. NUSSLE. That is my understanding. The budget is intended to
protect farm programs and the crop insurance program. Our committee
will work with the chairman and other members of the Committee on
Agriculture such as yourself to ensure that we protect critical farm
programs and the crop insurance program. This includes an adequate
funding level for programs authorized under last year's farm bill.
Mr. OSBORNE. I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget for
his responses to my inquiries. As I understand what the chairman is
saying, the Committee on Agriculture should look to eliminating waste,
fraud and abuse, and that he will work to see that there are no
reductions in the current farm program and crop insurance program other
than those attributable to waste, fraud and abuse.
Mr. NUSSLE. The gentleman is correct. I appreciate his help and
support in this endeavor.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would simply say that these colloquies we are hearing on the House
floor indicate how difficult it is going to be to achieve the kind of
reconciliation cuts that have been directed to various committees. We
see the committee people coming out here and saying, You are not going
to cut this, are you? You are not going to cut that, are you? You are
not going to cut government pensions, for goodness sakes. We will
correct the procurement system and save $43 billion.
That is why I find it hard to take this budget at face value. I am
sorry, but that is way I approach it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
South Carolina for his leadership on this budget. I rise in opposition
to the Toomey amendment. But before I do that, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to first offer my prayers and support for all of our brave
soldiers currently serving in Iraq and the surrounding regions.

{time} 1900

Mr. Chairman, the Toomey amendment would provide less discretionary
spending than the Republican budget resolution, which means that his
amendment would keep this Nation in deficit spending far past 2007.
With respect to the underlying bill, our Nation is fighting an
expensive war, the costs of which are yet unknown. Thus it is
unconscionable that this body would take up a budget resolution that
would propose cuts in key domestic programs.
According to the National Urban League, this budget resolution
clearly shows how policy can affect the gap in black and white wealth
accumulation. First, the biggest tax expenditure in the Federal
Government is the deduction of health insurance. African Americans do
not get access to this credit, as one third of African Americans get
health insurance through Medicare. Thus this budget resolution on the
House floor proposes to cut $300 billion out of minority communities
through Medicare cuts. Over the next 10 years, this budget resolution
would cut also as much as $470 billion in programs such as Medicare,
Medicaid, education, and veterans benefits. In fact, the Republican
Party's budget resolution drastically cuts domestic programs by $244
billion below the amount needed to maintain the FY 2003 funding levels.
I believe we owe the American people that we must take care of their
affordable health care needs, and I believe the Democratic substitute
amendment and budget offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) does exactly that. My constituents want their benefits under
Medicare and Medicaid protected. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this budget
resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
would increase the resources for homeland security and first
responders.
I say vote for the Spratt amendment and vote ``no'' on the Republican
budget.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond and
correct what I think was a misstatement.
The fact is the cuts in spending in our Republican Study Committee
budget did not result in larger deficits. They result in smaller
deficits because we have got less spending, and that means less debt,
and that means we get back into balance faster than any other budget
that will be considered today; and I am looking forward to the
enthusiastic support of the Blue Dogs, who feel very strongly about
getting back into balance.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.

[[Page H2198]]

And I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania on this for his work on
this alternative budget, and I offer it my full support. It is said
that we simply cannot cut anymore and that the Nussle budget that we
have, a lot of people are saying it cuts too deeply. This is simply
wrong. When we look across the board and we look at what we have done
as Republicans, frankly, over the past 8 years, since 1996, the first
year of the first Republican budget, we have increased spending for all
cabinet agencies substantially, much more so than inflation. Inflation
has been about 21 percent since 1996. The Agriculture Department has
gone up 27.5 percent; Commerce, 40.2 percent; Energy, 34.4; HHS, 94.7;
HUD, 52.6; Interior, 45 percent since 1996. The State Department has
gone up 68 percent; Labor Department, 23.8; Defense Department, 43.7.
And how about education? It is always said we do not spend enough on
education. Try a 131.9 percent increase since 1996.
And we say we cannot cut anything. We say we cannot find waste,
fraud, and abuse, 1 percent of it. Come on. Let us get serious. We just
passed an omnibus bill a couple of weeks ago that had items like $3.1
million for the Inventors Hall of Fame that I did not even know we had,
or how about $750,000 for the Baseball Hall of Fame? The Rock and Roll
Hall of Fame got $350,000. What are we doing? $800,000 to the Grammy
Foundation. That now is part of the baseline. We are adding to that and
we keep adding and adding and adding and adding. Where does it end? We
have got to get some fiscal sanity, and that is what the Toomey budget
does. This brings our budget back into balance faster than any other
budget plan outlined, in 4 years.
We know that there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse out there.
More than $8 billion has gone out in erroneous earned income tax credit
payments. There is mismanagement of over $3 billion in the Bureau of
Indian Affairs trust funds, over $2 billion in erroneous food stamp
payments. Two years ago there was over $1 billion in unissued medical
bills for Veterans Health Administration. The list goes on and on and
on. We can cut more. We can actually give tax cuts and cut spending and
come into balance much faster than the budget outlined by the Democrats
and the Republicans in the majority. I urge support of the Toomey
amendment, the Toomey plan.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before yielding to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge),
let me quote from a letter that was written to Speaker Hastert by the
head of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. He said, ``We do not
consider payments toward disabled veterans, pensions for the poorest
disabled veterans, and GI benefits for soldiers returning from
Afghanistan to be waste, fraud, and abuse.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in opposition to this amendment and to the underlying
Republican budget resolution and in support of the Spratt substitute
that will be up shortly. The Federal budget is a statement of our
Nation's priorities. It is where we put our national resources to meet
our Nation's most important needs. Unfortunately, this budget has
fundamental flaws and has misplaced priorities that I think shortchange
the American people. Instead of investing in a strong, more prosperous
America for years to come, the Republican budget neglects our economy,
explodes the national debt, undermines key investments in homeland
security, education, health care, and continues to spend Social
Security trust funds. All of these priorities are sacrificed for
another large tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. I guess it means we
take from the many to give to the few.
I am most disappointed in the Republicans cuts in education, however.
Prior to my service in this body, I served as the superintendent of
schools for my home State of North Carolina, and I sought this office
because the Republican majority under Newt Gingrich targeted public
education in America, and I said I was coming to this House to fight to
stop it. We have made a great deal of progress on changing the dialogue
on this critical issue, but unfortunately the rhetoric is a lot more
pro-education than the record.
Last Congress the President of the United States signed into law the
No Child Left Behind Act, which promised to start new investments to
improve schools in this country; but before teachers, students and
parents get a chance to figure out the tough requirements that we
passed, and, yes, I voted for that legislation, under this new law the
administration has failed to fund its own program; and the fact is that
this budget underfunds it with the consent of the administration,
totality so far by about $20 billion to No Child Left Behind. I cannot
and I will not agree to these outrageous cuts in education.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget's $400 million cut eliminates
after-school initiatives in my home county for children, about 11,000
of them. It cuts teacher quality programs for every State in this
country. For the State of North Carolina, $1.7 million. For the great
universities and colleges we have in this country that are training our
future leaders, it will cut Pell grants in these programs to make a
difference; Cutting the Perkins loans money that makes a difference,
having children who transfer from community college to university. This
budget cuts $765 million for COPS, et cetera, et cetera.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, probably the worst example of misplaced
priorities in this budget is the shameful treatment of our children of
our fighting men and women. As we all know, right now Americans, men
and women, are now putting up a proud fight on the other side of the
world, and yet in this budget we are cutting Impact Aid to schools in
this very budget that they have proposed. That is wrong. The Observer
in my home county said a 14.5 percent cut will eliminate $173 million
that helps pay for books and classrooms for these children, and that is
absolutely wrong. We can do better.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes for the purposes
of entering into a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, and I yield to him for that purpose.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year of 2004. First, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for his willingness to work in
partnership with me to ensure that this budget resolution lays the
groundwork for a successful reauthorization of highway and transit
programs. I am pleased that this resolution includes a contingency
procedure for surface transportation, which will provide the
flexibility we need to reauthorize our highway and transit programs.
Under this contingency procedure, spending from the Highway Trust Fund
for highway and transit programs will be increased above baseline
levels to the extent that Highway Trust Fund receipts are increased.
For every dollar increase in Highway Trust Fund receipts, a dollar
increase in budget authority for highway and transit programs will be
permitted. This contingency procedure is a necessary first step in our
efforts to meet the infrastructure investment needs of our Nation's
highways, bridges, and transit systems.
I have three concerns with the resolution I hope can be worked out in
conference. First, the baseline level assumed in the resolution for the
trust fund share of transit programs is frozen at the fiscal year 2003-
enacted level. The reason that has been given for this assumption is
uncertainty over the solvency of the transit account of the Highway
Trust Fund. I want to assure the chairman that my committee intends to
restructure transit programs such that the solvency of the transit
account will be ensured. This restructuring, which is also proposed in
the President's budget, will allow the transit account of the Highway
Trust Fund to support increased spending levels.
Second, I am concerned that the resolution allocates just $3.378
billion each year for the airport improvement program. This is below
the President's request and significantly below what

[[Page H2199]]

will be needed to meet our airport capital needs when we reauthorize
aviation programs later this year.
Finally, I believe the reconciliation instructions for the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure are based on unrealistic
assumptions. Most of the mandatory spending under my committee's
jurisdiction results from Coast Guard and railroad industry retirement
programs. I do not agree with the assumption in the resolution that
these programs can be cut.
I hope to continue working cooperatively with the chairman on these
concerns as the resolution goes to conference with the Senate. I would
like to ask the chairman of the Committee on the Budget if he will
continue to work with me to address these concerns.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I thank the very
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for his work in getting us to this point in time.
Obviously there are a number of challenges. I will continue to work
with him and members of his committee as we go to conference. We have a
huge issue this year, as the gentleman knows. It is going to fall on
his committee. We have challenges we need to meet in all of the
transportation needs of our country. So, yes, I would be happy to work
with the chairman as we move to conference on this issue, and I
appreciate his support of our resolution.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, again I thank the chairman for his
work and working with me and trying to work through these important
issues. I do believe we need a budget, and he has a tremendous task in
front of him. He has done all he could for my area of transportation,
and I urge support for this resolution.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining
9 minutes be yielded to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
as long as he does not give me another zinger here.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen).

{time} 1915

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Toomey plan, which I find even
worse, if possible, than the majority Republican plan. I have been
doing this now for 7 years, and every year the sense of unreality grows
greater as I see charts and graphs on the other side that bear, in my
opinion, very little relation to reality. The charts and graphs this
year, the budgets proposed, both of the Republican budgets, seem to me
totally unrealistic. The charts are misleading in an astonishing number
of respects.
We are dealing with what can only be called voodoo economics. But we
have to ask ourselves, among all the numbers, what is really going on
here? Well, if you set aside all the numbers, and you look at all the
different changes that are being made, two things are going on.
The Republican majority is determined, absolutely determined, to
shift the burden of government from the Federal level to the State and
local level. This is an effort to cut taxes at the Federal level and
increase them at the State and local level. It is an effort to reduce
the amount of money that the Federal Government provides States and
municipalities for environmental issues, for health care, for
education, in order to diminish the size of the Federal Government.
That is it. That is what is going on. That is number one.
Number two, the second effort that is being made by the majority here
is to make sure that the burden of taxation in this country is reduced
from those at the upper income levels, so that it burdens those at
middle income levels more than it has in the past. The way of doing
this, of course, is to give little, bitty tax cuts to people in the
middle of the income scale, and to give massive tax cuts to people at
the upper end of the income scale. The reason for doing this, I would
add, is the other side believes in a flat tax, but they do not want to
argue a flat tax; they simply want to arrive there.
Look at a couple of the charts. We have heard over and over again how
much ordinary citizens will benefit from eliminating the tax on
dividends. Look at the chart. Here is the tax benefit. This is designed
to show how people at different income groups will benefit.
Let us skip all of those who earn less than $100,000, because even if
they are just below $100,000, households will only get about $300 a
year. If you earn between $100,000 and $200,000, you get $885. If you
earn between $100,000 and $200,000 a year, you get a total of $885. But
if you move up the scale to where you are earning around $1 million,
that is where the benefit comes. Then you get an average tax benefit,
annually, of $45,000. That is why everything the other side says about
averages makes no sense.
Then they say we need to accelerate the tax cuts passed last year and
make them permanent. The same deal. If you earn between, pick a
different category, pick between $200,000 and $500,000 a year, you get
$2,000 a year. Below that it is not much. But if your household takes
in about $1 million a year, it is $63,000 a year.
There is no moral justification for stripping this much money out of
the Federal Government, cutting education, cutting veterans' benefits,
in order to give tax cuts to the richest people in the country. It is
an outrage.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the
previous speaker, just to observe that under the budget that we are
proposing, the Republican Study Committee, and under the President's
tax plan, a family of four making $35,000 a year would pay nothing in
federal income taxes. Zero. In fact, the top 50 percent of wage earners
in America pay 96 percent of all Federal income taxes. When you lower
taxes, it is just hard not to lower the taxes on the people who are
actually paying the taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson).
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman
challenged that statement, because we are hearing a lot of rhetoric
here that does not track.
I continually hear from my constituents that we need to rein in
runaway Federal spending. Do you know what? They are right. More
government spending does not necessarily make our economy better. When
we are at war, and we are, this is the exact time when we should be
reducing spending, cutting taxes and getting the economy back on track.
When a family sits down to manage their monthly budget, they have to
prioritize what is best for them at that time in their lives, and they
usually make a list of needs and wants. A need is not the same thing as
a want. For a family, a need is a roof over their head or food on the
table. A want could be dinner out at a restaurant or a movie. So you
fund first things first. Then whatever is left over at the end lets you
fund the wants. You cannot just spend, spend, spend and hope you have
enough to cover the tab.
The same needs to be done with the Federal budget. During these
difficult times, when we are at war, when we need to spur the economy,
we must differentiate between the needs and wants. We cannot just
spend, spend, spend.
Our first need is to protect our country, so that means we fully fund
defense. While this budget does not devote a full 4 percent of gross
domestic product to the national security as I would prefer, it does
meet the President's request for homeland security funding.
I will tell you something: This Toomey budget funds defense higher
than domestic spending for the first time in many years. I think,
because of our situation, we need it. Our Constitution requires us to
provide for a common defense. Let us not shirk that responsibility.
Another priority is to help the economy rebound. It is a proven fact
that when people can keep more of their own money, the economy grows.
That is why we lower taxes. When entrepreneurs have more money, they
can

[[Page H2200]]

use that capital to hire more employees, buy more equipment or expand
their business.
This economy could use a turnaround, and letting people keep more of
their own money will help our economy grow.
Frankly, I am a bit disappointed in the Republican Study Committee
budget because it does not do more to rein in Federal spending.
However, I think most would agree, this is a good compromise for this
time.
Look, this budget makes tough choices; but that is why we are
elected, to make tough choices. The good people of my district sent me
here because they wanted a smarter, more efficient government, and the
Republican Study Committee budget is a step in the right direction;
increasing defense, lowering taxes and reining in runaway government
spending. It is the right thing to do.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the budget that we have put forth by the Republican
majority is almost an unbelievable exercise in fiscal irresponsibility.
On the very first day of the war that we are now fighting, the majority
party introduced a budget resolution that does not provide 1 cent, not
1 cent, to prosecute this war. This budget resolution contains more
than $1 trillion in tax cuts that would benefit very few Americans,
while endangering Social Security and Medicare.
I offered an amendment to the budget resolution to express the sense
of the Congress that no new tax cuts should be passed until the Health,
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds are secured, but I was, of
course, denied the opportunity to offer the amendment here tonight.
When we take a look at what is before us, when so many things are
uncertain, I believe we need to pause before we pass into law huge,
permanent tax cuts paid for by shortchanging essential programs, such
as Medicare, education, veterans and funding for first responders.
Right now we do not even know how long the war may last or what it
might cost. It is irresponsible to pass a budget without taking all
information into account.
If you take a look just the part on the veterans, the majority party
cuts $14.2 billion over the next 10 years in benefits such as
compensation for service-connected disabilities, burial benefits and GI
education benefits. They are cut in this. What kind of message does
that send to our troops fighting overseas? The fighting troops today
are the veterans of tomorrow.
The Republican plan also fails to provide necessary homeland defense
for State and local communities. It is just as important to provide
homeland defense resources, training and staff for our local
firefighters, EMTs, police officers and medical workers as it is to
equip our troops overseas.
The Democratic substitute we will have a chance to vote on later
tonight will provide $34 billion in extra money, new money, over the
next 10 years for homeland security. In fact, $10 billion of this money
would go to our States and local communities, right now this year.
I would urge a no vote on the budget resolution of the Republican
Party as it is fiscally irresponsible. Vote no on the Toomey
substitute, and support the Democratic substitute.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from New
Jersey, I yield myself such time as I may consume to observe that
although our budget grows spending every year, total spending grows, it
grows at a slower rate than the alternative budgets, and that is why we
are able to get back to balance faster than any other budgets, and why
I look forward to the Blue Dog support, and that is why the Americans
for Tax Reform and Citizens Against Government Waste have endorsed the
Republican Study Committee budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the proposed amendment offered by my friend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
As elected officials, we are sent here and are supposed to be
responsible to the people that send us to office, but government
spending has ballooned out of control, and it is the people back home
in our districts who are the ones forced to foot the bill.
Over the last 7 years, discretionary spending has grown at an average
rate of 3.5 times the rate of inflation. I do not know anyone back in
my district who has seen their family budget go up at such rates time
and time again. Spending is growing at a rate faster than the family
budgets. It must stop.
Right now people back in our districts are turning on their TVs, they
are seeing our men and women, our sons and daughters, our friends and
neighbors in harm's way. We are engaged in a war on terrorism. We are
still experiencing the aftermath of 9/11 as it affects our economy.
So we are asking our families to tighten their belts because of that.
We are asking county governments, State governments to do more with
less. Is it not the responsibility of us here in Washington to lead
then by example, to do the same thing, maybe to even take one step
further?
We can give a lot of examples, and you have heard some already, about
the waste in government: Over $8 billion in erroneous earned income tax
payments; I think someone else mentioned around $13.3 billion on
Medicare; around $1 billion under the veterans' programs.
Let me say, cutting wasteful spending is not enough. We in Congress
must take the next step and actually begin to make the tough decisions
we were sent here for in the first place.
Every single program that we vote on has someone behind it that
supports it and likes that program. But we are elected to Congress to
make those tough choices, to do what is the first priority of us in
Congress, to make sure that our folks back at home are safe, that this
is a secure Nation, and that our men and women and troops overseas have
the supplies, equipment and training necessary to get the job done.
We cannot do less than sending them a responsible budget. Our
children, our neighbors and our troops, they are dependent on us.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the administration's budget cuts highway
construction by $2.5 billion below this year's budget and slashes
funding necessary to keep Amtrak running. The official House Republican
budget cuts the discretionary transportation programs by 22 percent
below the 2003 budget enacted just a month ago. The proposal before us
is even worse.
The administration claims to be committed to economic growth and
jobs, but this administration has the worst job growth record since
Herbert Hoover. In fact, the administration's record is job loss, not
growth; nearly 2 million non-farm payroll jobs lost in 2 years. On
average, that is 73,000 jobs lost for every one of the 26 months of
this administration. Yet cuts in transportation spending loses even
more jobs tacked onto that miserable Republican economic record.
The Republican Party is only concerned about tax cuts for the already
wealthy. When the economy is doing well, cut taxes for the already
wealthy. When the economy is in recession, cut taxes for the already
wealthy. When we are at peace, cut taxes for the already wealthy. Now
while we are at war, cut taxes for the already wealthy.
Their highest priority is tax cuts for the already wealthy. They are
not paying for their war, not reducing their deficits and debt, not
keeping their promises to leave no child behind, not providing health
care for veterans and the elderly.
Mr. Chairman, the already wealthy do not need more tax cuts. Vote no
on this Republican budget and support the Democratic substitute.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the balanced
budget alternative offered by my friend, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

{time} 1930

The Toomey budget offers several key priorities for the Nation at
this time of war and economic uncertainty.

[[Page H2201]]

The people of Colorado sent me here to rein in out-of-control
government spending, to cut taxes, and to get government off their
backs. Instead of spending the people's money like there is no
tomorrow, we ought to provide real leadership and real solutions to
demonstrate responsible fiscal discipline.
Mr. Chairman, just as it is our duty to protect American families
from cowardly acts of terrorism, it is also our duty to protect the
well-being of American families by balancing the budget to grow the
American economy. It is our duty to protect the people's wallets by
allowing taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I do not
want to mortgage the future of working families because we cannot say
no to a government that is far too big and spends far too much. The
American people will be proud of the Toomey budget because it keeps
President Bush's tax cuts intact, while balancing the budget in a
realistic 4-year time frame.
I ask my fellow Members of Congress to stand up and to do the right
thing for America. Let us not shirk our responsibilities to future
generations. Please join me in supporting the Toomey budget amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, both Republican budget resolutions, the
leadership resolution and the Toomey alternative, give us high
deficits, high interest rates, and increased trade deficits. They take
capital out of the capital markets and make it unavailable for private
business investment, thus resulting in slower economic growth.
Now, to sell anything that bad, one needs a commercial. This morning
I brought such a commercial to the floor, but marketing experts tell us
a commercial requires repetition. So here, once again, is a commercial
on behalf of both Republican budget resolutions:
Allowing corporations to skip out on their American taxes just by
renting a hotel room in the Bahamas: $4 billion. Ending taxes on
dividends: $385 billion. Ending the estate tax, even for the largest
estates: $662 billion. Knowing you can pass the entire cost to future
generations: Priceless.
RepubliCard: It is everything the super-wealthy want it to be.
Also available, the Deficit Express Card, now with a $4.2 trillion
credit limit. The Deficit Express Card: Don't leave the House without
it.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the
creative and very amusing account from my good friend who just spoke
about this. However, I would remind him that if he is very concerned
about the size of the deficit and the magnitude of the debt, then he
will vote for the RSC budget, the Toomey budget, because that is the
one that gets us back to balance quickest; that is the one with the
smallest deficits and the least debt.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we are at war, and I think most
taxpayers understand you spend what it takes to win a war. We are in a
recession as well, and taxpayers understand you spend what it takes to
keep people in their jobs and to create new jobs for those who have
lost them. But what taxpayers do not understand and will not accept is
when we use it either to go on a spending spree that keeps us from
balancing the budget, or keeps us from paying down our debt, or keeps
us sending pork home to America and taking it out of their tax dollars.
This budget supports a strong national defense, promotes new jobs in
a stronger economy, but it holds the line on spending. It says, let us
tighten our belts in Washington; let us start to balance the budgets
sooner than other budgets, and let us get people back to work.
This budget also includes a Federal sunset act, an encouragement for
Congress to pass a bill to balance obsolete agencies, to eliminate
duplication among our agencies, and to begin asking agencies to put up
or shut up; to produce, to succeed, to support our taxpayers. What we
are trying to do is conserve our dollars, identify wasteful spending
within our agencies and within our programs so that we have enough
dollars for a secure America, for health care, for education, and to
send dollars back home.
Mr. Chairman, I support this budget. It makes a lot of sense, and
perhaps because it makes sense is why it is getting so much resistance
here in Washington.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield myself the remaining time.
I would just say in conclusion that if the Members of this House want
to vote for a budget that gets us back in balance without balancing the
budget on the backs of our children, our elderly, or our most worthy
citizens, and our sick and disabled veterans; if they want to get back
into balance by the year 2010, we present a budget, our own
alternative, which takes us there steadily every year with a lower and
lower deficit and accumulates $931 billion less in new public debt than
the Republican budget.
So I would say that those who are conservative, those who want to
vote for a fiscally responsible and conservative fiscal policy will
have that opportunity, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for the
House democratic alternative as something that achieves my colleagues'
objectives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the
gentleman from North Carolina by observing that the Democrat substitute
has more spending, has higher taxes, and it has larger deficits for
longer than the substitute that we are debating at this point.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, he is
incorrect on all accounts, including the assignment to me to North
Carolina. I am from South Carolina.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the gentleman from South
Carolina. That was the one mistake I just made.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the alternative
budget resolution proposed by the Republican Study Committee.
I think sometimes we get into the details of these budgets and take a
look at it just on a year-to-year basis, but I think it might be
helpful for us to step back just a little bit, to step back to a time
when I was only 2 years old. What was the tax burden on the average
family in the year 1950? In 1950, you have a mom and a dad and 2 kids,
and dad would go out and earn a dollar bill. Out of that dollar bill, 3
pennies of it would go for direct State, Federal, and local taxes.
Now, about 4 years ago, what happened? Mom and dad and 2 kids. Dad
goes out to earn a dollar. Now we go from 3 cents to 38 cents tax on
that average American family. That average American family is paying
more in taxes than they are for what they pay for food and clothing and
shelter combined.
In one generation we have come a long way in the growth of big
government, and at a time when State and local governments and families
all across the country are tightening their belts, it is time for the
Federal Government to do the same thing.
The Republican Study Committee budget freezes total discretionary
spending for 1 year. That is not too unreasonable considering it grew 9
percent this last year.
One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, my constituents sent me here was to
take a look at the idea of reducing not only the size, but the scope of
Federal Government, and that is the debate we should be having. It is
important to get rid of wasteful spending, but it is even more
important that we take a look at actually reducing the scope of some of
the things that we are trying to do.
When we are talking more tax on a family than 38 percent, more than
they pay for food, clothing, and shelter, we are not talking about a
safety net anymore, we are talking about excessive government.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.

[[Page H2202]]

I rise in support of the Toomey amendment to the budget resolution. I
congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), on
presenting a wonderful budget to this Congress. But indeed, there is
even a better budget, and that is one that presents less government and
more freedom.
Now, many people criticize this budget. They said there is not enough
government spending involved in this budget. But, Mr. Chairman, over
the last 5 years, we have increased VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
35.7 percent; Commerce and Justice 32.3 percent; Transportation, 79.7
percent; Education, 132 percent, and the list goes on.
How much government is enough? Does anything good happen in America
that does not result from a government program? And if not, perhaps we
should just double these budgets every year, or perhaps even triple
them.
But let me tell my colleagues, since I have been on the face of the
planet, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family
budget. If the family budget grew as fast as the government budget,
right now that family budget would be at $79,059, instead of $51,407.
Mr. Chairman, if all of these government programs did us so much
good, then perhaps we ought to look at increasing the funding for each
and every one. But instead we know that HUD has spent $2.6 billion in
Section 8 overpayments out of $31 billion. The National Park Service
spends $800,000 for an outhouse, and it does not even work. And the
list goes on and on and on.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, particularly at a time of war, and when
families, hard-working American families, are having to make tough
economic decisions around their kitchen table, should they not at least
expect their Congress to make smart decisions? I do not think anything
less should be expected out of this body. We can indeed save money
without cutting needed programs and without raising taxes on the
American people.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of the Nussle budget, but in stronger support of
the RSC Toomey budget. Let me make it clear why.
This Congress, year in and year out, faces the challenge of setting a
budget for our Nation, but it seems to me this year we are divorced
from reality. The reality of this Nation is that in the last 7 years,
nondefense discretionary spending has grown by a staggering 66 percent.
Over the past 7 years, discretionary spending has grown at three and a
half times the rate of inflation. In fiscal year 2003 alone, we
increase spending by 9 percent over the previous year in 1 year only.
Enough is enough. The reality is that across America, local
governments, State governments, city governments, county governments
are making real dollar cuts in their spending.
Now, to its credit, the Nussle budget says, we ought to scale back.
It walls off certain areas, but it says we ought to at least have a 1
percent cut in some areas where we can achieve that. But the rest of
the budget spends too much money.
Let us look at what we have been doing in spending. Since 1996,
agricultural spending is up 27.5 percent; Commerce Department, 40.2;
Energy, 34.4; HHS, a staggering 94 percent; and Education, 131.9
percent. I could go on and on.
Mr. Chairman, I was here in 1995 when we enacted real spending
restraint in this Congress. We did not actually stop the growth of
spending, but we sure slowed it down. What is lacking now is
discipline.
I was a participant in those hearings when we went across America and
we asked the American people, can you do with less government? And they
looked us in the eye and they said, yes. They said, so long as the
restraint in spending, the cuts which we are asking them to make, were
evenly distributed across our society so that all programs took some
hits, they were willing to do it.
We face a slowed economy, and we face a war. It is time for the
Congress to exercise discipline. It is time for the Congress to lead.
The Toomey budget does that. It says that these are not normal times.
It says that we can, in fact, do with a little less.
I want to draw a parallel to American businesses. Every one of us
here knows businesses back home, every one of us knows the key to
business. What is the key to business in America? It is year after year
doing more with less. What has made America's economy boom in the last
few years leading up to the recent situation? I will tell my colleagues
what made it boom. It was improvements in efficiency. It is doing more
with less.

{time} 1945

Yet that is a concept that we do not even think about in government.
Is it impossible for us to do more with less in the government? I
suggest it is not, and I strongly support the budget of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would just make the following observation, Mr. Chairman. Most of us
on both sides of the aisle talk a pretty good game about fiscal
discipline. Here is the opportunity to walk the walk.
This substitute budget slows down the growth rate of government
spending. It has more in tax cuts to get this economy growing again. It
reaches a balance faster than any other budget that is considered today
on the floor. It does so within 4 years. It is endorsed by Americans
for Tax Reform and Citizens Against Government Waste.
For any of our colleagues who are serious about getting our deficit
under control, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this substitute.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Republican Study Committee Budget Substitute. Former President Reagan
said it best when he said, ``government does nothing as well or as
economically as the private sector.'' These are trying times and our
Nation faces serious challenges in the coming months. With that in
mind, it is irresponsible to fund projects that deter or deviate from
the original intent of government. Instead, we must plan ahead and put
forth our best effort to return to a balanced budget.
The RSC Budget includes all of President Bush's economic growth
package, tax fairness proposals and balances the budget in 4 years.
Four years. With the decreases in capital gains taxes, we will create
over 1 million new jobs. There is no better time to return hard-earned
money back to the American people. And I have no doubt that any effort
to remain fiscally responsible will help boost economic growth.
In 1950, we were paying 2 percent of our money to the government.
Today, that figure has skyrocketed to 30 percent. A 28 percent
increase. In 2001, the Federal Government made $20 billion in
overpayments. Not to mention that it cannot account for another $17.3
billion. Should not the American people be permitted to spend their
money as they choose? How can we expect the people of this country to
tighten their belt, when we cannot impose strict fiscal discipline on
ourselves?
The RSC Budget includes a reserve fund for Social Security reform.
Under the current system, nearly $6 trillion would be needed just to
repay the trust fund. According to the Social Security Administration,
it will take only about $7 trillion to fix the system permanently. Our
baby boomers deserve a secure retirement. They paid for it.
This budget retains the President's defense spending numbers and the
President's funding levels for homeland security--crucial now, when our
courageous military heroes are depending on our support.
It is time to return to an era of economic prosperity. Time to put an
end to reckless Federal spending. Men and women in our military are
sacrificing their lives for our country. We have the power to do the
same in Congress by making our own sacrifices to cut back on wasteful
spending and balance the budget. There is no more appropriate time to
do so than now. Having said that, I commend Mr. Toomey for introducing
the best budget that he possibly could at this historic time in our
Nation's history.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, and in support of the CBC and Democratic Alternative
budgets.
I didn't think a budget resolution could be much worse than the one
produced by the Majority, but then I see the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. This amendment calls for more tax cuts and
more cuts in nondefense and non-homeland security spending.
Like the parent resolution offered by the Majority leadership, the
budget cuts called for in the gentleman's alternative are just
unrealistic. In fact, the $1.6 trillion tax cut proposed by the

[[Page H2203]]

gentleman's alternative, requires that domestic spending be cut by an
additional $8 billion.
The budgets proposed by Republican Study Conference and the Majority
leadership will force authorizing committees' to reduce eligibility
requirements and benefits for people programs that service our
children, veterans, farmers, federal workers and more.
Like the parent resolution, the RSC amendment provides more tax cuts
for the wealthy that are bound to continue to take our economy down the
glide path of additional deficits. What I don't understand is why our
distinguished majority rightly calls on all Americans to support the
war effort in Iraq, but is not willing to pay for its costs. That is a
major disconnect.
The Democratic and CBC alternative budgets offer targeted tax cuts
that are designed to stimulate the economy and produce real jobs. Up to
a million jobs will be produced by the Democratic Alternative in 2003.
The Majority's plan, on the other hand, creates only 190,000 jobs in
2003.
The CBC and Democratic Alternative budgets provide more money for
Medicare prescription drugs. The Democratic Alternative sets aside $528
billion in new money for a prescription drug program. We deliver and
the President's party doesn't.
The Democratic Alternative and Black Caucus budgets invest in
education and training. These increases will enable Congress to
increase funding for the ``No Child Left Behind Act.''
The Democratic and CBC Alternatives protect our men and women in war;
they advance the security needs of our homeland; they increase our
investment in human capital and the nation's infrastructure. And they
do so in a fiscally responsible way.
Soon we will be asked to redevelop and rebuild Iraq. We will be asked
to pass appropriations that will develop and modernize that country's
health care delivery system, repair and build 3,000 miles of major
thoroughfares; upgrade the country's maritime ports, build classrooms
and provide student supplies; provide 20,000 units of housing; rebuild
the country's financial system; establish a potable water delivery
system; and more.
It is ironic that this administration and the majority party in this
Chamber will be asking us to spend billions to invest in redeveloping
the infrastructure in Iraq while it simultaneously cuts back our
investment in American cities, states and individual human capital. The
Members on the other side of the aisle may be able to explain that to
their constituents, but I know I won't be able to explain it to mine.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment and
support the CBC and Democratic Alternatives budget resolutions.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 80,
noes 342, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 79]

AYES--80

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Cole
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Goode
Goodlatte
Green (WI)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Linder
Manzullo
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Rehberg
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Weller
Wilson (SC)

NOES--342

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Buyer
Combest
Gephardt
Hyde
John
Kennedy (RI)
King (NY)
Lipinski
Smith (MI)
Thornberry
Udall (CO)
Vitter

{time} 2015

Messrs. GUTKNECHT, CONYERS, BRADLEY of New Hampshire, BONNER, SABO
and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MANZULLO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 79 I was
receiving a briefing on the war in Iraq with Secretary Rumsfeld and
General Meyers. That occurred simultaneously with this rollcall.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Stated against:
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, during Rollcall Vote 79, I was detained at
a briefing from Secretary Rumsfeld on the war with Iraq. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). It is now in order to
consider amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 108-44.

Part B Amendment No. 3 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr.
Cummings

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

[[Page H2204]]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Part B Amendment No. 3 in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Cummings:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2004.

The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004 is hereby established and that
the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2005
through 2013 are hereby set forth.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2013:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,510,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,684,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,831,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,958,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,075,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,197,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,327,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,511,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,707,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,863,500,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be increased are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $44,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $67,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $91,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $105,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $112,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $119,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $134,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $84,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $57,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $59,300,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,836,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,958,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,064,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,165,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,264,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,370,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,483,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,546,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,588,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,699,400,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,883,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,002,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,100,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,198,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,298,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,404,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,517,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,589,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,620,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,735,800,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: -$372,800,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: -$317,500,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: -$269,100,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: -$239,800,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: -$223,700,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,197,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,327,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,511,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,707,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,863,500,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $4,013,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $4,013,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $4,013,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2004 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $387,995,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $392,432,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $396,195,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $395,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $406,277,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $396,882,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $416,078,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $399,277,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $427,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,028,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $441,936,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $429,648,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $453,276,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $444,073,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $464,893,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $460,513,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $476,777,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $465,494,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $488,991,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $482,639,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $34,681,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,946,950,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $35,374,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,605,889,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $36,081,480,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,277,406,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $36,803,109,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,962,954,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $37,539,171,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,662,213,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $38,289,854,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,524,057,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $39,055,651,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,274,538,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $39,836,764,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,040,029,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $40,606,499,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,794,370,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $41,418,638,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,590,256,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,705,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $24,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,189,500,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $24,970,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,721,500,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $25,540,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,263,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $26,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,852,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $26,780,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $27,430,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,058,500,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $28,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $28,780,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,371,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $29,460,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,987,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $3,118,500,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,962,575,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $3,273,600,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,109,920,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $3,181,200,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,022,140,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,984,300,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,835,085,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $3,583,800,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,404,610,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $3,600,300,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,420,285,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $3,722,400,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,536,280,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $3,836,800,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,644,960,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $3,963,300,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,765,135,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $4,096,400,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,891,580,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $31,440,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,811,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $32,383,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $33,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,688,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:

[[Page H2205]]

(A) New budget authority, $34,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,666,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $35,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $36,448,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,719,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $37,541,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,790,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $38,668,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,595,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $39,827,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,030,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $41,022,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,202,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $20,212,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,808,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $20,616,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,204,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $21,028,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,608,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $21,448,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $21,876,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,439,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $22,313,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,867,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $22,759,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,304,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $23,214,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,750,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $23,678,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,205,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $24,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,634,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $7,678,650,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,514,500,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $7,821,300,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,664,900,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $7,977,700,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,818,100,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $8,137,300,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,974,600,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,139,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $8,466,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,296,700,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $8,635,300,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,462,600,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $8,808,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,631,800,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $8,984,200,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,804,500,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $9,163,900,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,480,600,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $99,839,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,363,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $66,202,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $67,815,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,393,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $69,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $71,057,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,950,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $72,746,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,307,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $74,503,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,938,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $76,340,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,694,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $78,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $76,544,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $80,112,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,431,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $14,723,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,429,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,017,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,717,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $15,317,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,011,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $15,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,311,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $15,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $16,254,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,929,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $16,579,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,247,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $16,911,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,573,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $17,249,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,904,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $17,594,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,242,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $107,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $104,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $117,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $115,346,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $129,470,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $126,881,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $142,417,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $139,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $156,658,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $153,325,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $172,223,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $160,775,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $189,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $185,657,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $208,389,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $204,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $229,227,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $224,643,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $252,149,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $247,107,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $242,955,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $238,096,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $247,814,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $242,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $252,770,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $257,825,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $257,825,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $252,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $262,981,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $257,722,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $268,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $262,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $273,604,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,132,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $279,076,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $273,495,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $284,657,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $278,964,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $290,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $284,543,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $250,955,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $250,955,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $265,608,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $260,608,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $292,411,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $292,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $313,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $313,160,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $336,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $336,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $351,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $351,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $377,120,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $377,120,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $403,968,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $403,968,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $403,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $403,507,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $460,889,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $460,889,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $367,050,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $359,709,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $374,391,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $366,903,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $381,879,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $374,241,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $389,517,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $381,727,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $397,307,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $389,361,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $405,253,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $397,148,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $413,358,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $405,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $421,625,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $413,192,000,000.

[[Page H2206]]

Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $430,058,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $421,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $438,659,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $429,886,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $501,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $498,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $521,499,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $518,672,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $546,735,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $543,640,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $575,008,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $571,621,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $606,071,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $602,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $641,105,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $636,939,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $679,322,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $674,852,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $720,505,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $715,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $766,154,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $760,812,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $816,195,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $810,363,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $64,916,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,618,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $66,863,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,526,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $68,869,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $70,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,516,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $73,063,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,575,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $75,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,750,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $77,513,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $79,838,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,241,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $82,234,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $84,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,007,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $40,787,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,971,260,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $40,957,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,137,860,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $41,212,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,387,760,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $41,552,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,720,960,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $41,977,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,137,460,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $46,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,500,420,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $47,871,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,913,500,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $49,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,379,660,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $50,894,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,876,120,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $52,477,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,427,460,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $19,768,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,586,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $20,025,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,213,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $19,654,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $19,955,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,766,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,552,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $20,168,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,761,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $20,572,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,127,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $21,294,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,826,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $22,039,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,829,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,323,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $255,938,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $255,938,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $307,866,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $307,866,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $345,708,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $345,708,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $372,992,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $372,992,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $400,172,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $400,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $425,477,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $425,477,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $452,793,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $452,793,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $478,544,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $478,544,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $504,010,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $504,010,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $529,542,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $529,542,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions.--Not later than June 1, 2003, the House
committees named in subsection (b) shall submit their
recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After
receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the
Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill
carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive
changes.
(b) Instructions.--
(1) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to increase the level of direct
spending for that committee by $1,043,000,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 and
$6,118,000,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years
2004 through 2013.
(2) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in law within its
jurisdiction sufficient to increase the total level of
revenues by not more than: $16,000,000,000 for fiscal year
2004, $1,677,500,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2004
through 2008, and $6,712,500,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2004 through 2013.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from

[[Page H2207]]

New York (Mr. Owens) who was the architect of the Congressional Black
Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus resolution.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first congratulate the
leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional
Progressive Caucus for the agreement to produce this joint budget.
Our troops are in the field now, and we are going to support those
troops. The best way we can support our troops is to try to bring them
home by policy changes, not in body bags, but bring them home smiling
on their feet. We also would like to support their families. This is a
budget which we call ``Leave No Families Behind.''
Mr. Chairman, 35 percent of the members of the Army are African
American. Two-thirds of the fighting force in Iraq, on the borders of
Iraq, are members of working families. We want to take care of the
families of the people who fight for America, and that is the gist of
this budget. It is a budget for working families.
We have stayed within the requirements of the majority. Our current
budget is $1.836 trillion. We have begun by adopting the Rangel shared
sacrifice freeze on tax cuts, and this generated a revenue base of $1.5
trillion. This has allowed the Congressional Black Caucus and the
Congressional Progressive Caucus to offer our current budget of $1.8
trillion. Our budget projections reached a low deficit of $72.9 billion
in the year 2011, and we offer a surplus of $87.7 billion in the years
2012 and $127.7 billion in 2013.
It is the strong and overriding belief of the Congressional Black
Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus that the budget and
appropriations processes are the highest importance to our
constituencies who make up the great majority of Americans. Budget
priorities speak in a language of numbers and dollars that tell the
people we represent how important their concerns and their welfare are
to us. This budget was prepared against the backdrop of a recession at
a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is greater in the
United States than in any other Nation.
A recent report of the Federal Reserve states that the median net
worth of white families went up 17 percent to $120,900, while the
median net worth for minority families during the same 3-year period
went down 4.5 percent to $17,000. The difference between $17,000 and
$120,000 is a stark difference. Working families of all ethnic groups
are included in this great gap between rich and poor, the white working
families as well as minority working families.
A key component of this budget is a stimulus package which addresses
the needs of all working families with proposals for extended
unemployment and health care benefits immediately, and also for
creating jobs as rapidly as possible. This budget also continues to
focus on certain unique needs of African American and minority
communities.
Mr. Chairman, I thank all Members and staff, especially Jacqueline
Ellis of my staff, who worked so diligently on producing this
alternative budget.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the CBC/
CPC substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute because our
reading is it raises taxes and increases spending, does not provide
enough for defense, and fails to reach balance sooner. Having said
that, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) wanted me to say that he
knows the amount of time and effort that was put into this budget and
also knows that there are important issues that will be brought out in
this debate that this Chamber needs to hear.
So with that, I will just compliment my colleagues on working on this
budget, say it is not a budget that we can support, but we look forward
to listening to the debate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the chairman of the Congressional Progressive
Caucus.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to participate with the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the CBC in the drafting of
this CBC/Progressive Caucus budget; and I am honored to be here with my
co-chair, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and I thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for the fine work that he did in
this regard.
I rise in support of the CBC/Progressive Caucus budget. This is the
only budget that funds universal single-payer health care. This is the
only budget that fully stimulates the economy with a $300 billion
economic stimulus package. This is the only budget that fully funds
education. This is the only budget that fully funds transportation.
This is the only budget that fully funds housing, and the only budget
that fully funds veterans programs, and the only budget that fully
funds the HIV-AIDS international support programs.
The CBC/Progressive Caucus budget calls on Congress to implement H.R.
676, Medicare For All. This legislation is a single-payer, universal
health care plan which will guarantee access to health care, guarantee
a universal high standard of care, and lower health care costs.
Earlier this month, it was reported that 75 million Americans went
without health insurance in 2001 or 2002. Our failing economy and
rising health care costs are failing working families who make up the
majority of the uninsured Americans. While costs continue to go up, we
are not getting what we are paying for. Government expenditures account
for 60 percent of total health care costs. Our government spends more
money per person than countries that provide universal health care. Our
citizens are so close to paying for a universal health care system, but
so far from getting it.
Medicare For All would first improve the Medicare program by adding
coverage for all medically necessary health services, including
prescription drugs. During a transition period, Medicare would subsume
other health programs like Medicaid and, finally, all Americans in
nongovernment programs.
It has been estimated that Medicare For All could be paid for with
the same amount of money that is currently in the system. Under
Medicare For All, employers would maintain a contribution to employee
health care in the form of a phased-in payroll tax. This payroll tax
would be less than what employers now pay on the average. And unlike
current skyrocketing health care costs, this contribution would remain
stable. Medicare For All would help employers by eliminating the costs
associated with providing private health care coverage, including
annual negotiations, annual premium increases, and administrative
tasks.
Patients would benefit because copayments, premiums, deductibles and
out-of-pocket payments would be eliminated for medically necessary
services. Under this plan, patients would receive a card that would
guarantee two things they do not now have: access to the health care
they need and a universal, best standard of medical care. This would
help to eliminate disparities in health care between whites and
minorities.
It is time for Congress to stop trimming around the edges of the
health care system. Workers, retirees, and employers are suffering
together from the burdens of illnesses and increasing costs. Congress
must budget for a real solution, that is, Medicare For All that is in
this budget.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for this opportunity to
participate.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican budget
resolution and in support of the joint Congressional Black Caucus and
Progressive Caucus budget alternative. This alternative budget,
entitled the Leave No Family Behind Budget Act, focuses national
attention on spending on priorities that benefit all Americans.
It does this by funding key domestic priorities which address the
needs of middle-income and working families, while fully supporting the
national defense and protection of our homeland.

[[Page H2208]]

These priorities include education, health care, housing, child care,
transportation, worker safety and protection, and business development.
It would immediately repeal tax cuts for the upper-income brackets and
would implement tax cuts for all families earning less than $50,000 per
year.
The CBC and the Progressive Caucus budget proposal involves several
balanced components. It provides Medicare For All, it provides a $300
billion economic stimulus package which includes an extension of
unemployment insurance, and implements state revenue sharing; and it
yields a balanced budget by 2008, at least 4 years earlier than the
Republican budget.
This fiscally responsible budget freezes the 2001 tax cut in order to
generate greater revenue.

{time} 2030

As such, our budget provides $528 billion for a Medicare prescription
drug benefit and restores the deep cuts in education by increasing
funding by $20 billion over the Republican budget proposal. This means
more funding for after-school programs, Head Start, Pell grants, child
care programs, TRIO, Gear Up and the Leave No Child Behind Act. This
means a prescription drug benefit that our seniors so desperately need.
Mr. Chairman, our budget alternative is feasible, balanced and
fiscally responsible. It will get our country on the road to recovery
while funding meaningful national priorities for our children, for our
seniors, for our veterans and for our communities. It reflects the
guiding principle that as a Nation we must come together and share the
sacrifice that is required to strengthen our economy and put us on a
better fiscal footing.
Unfortunately, the Republican budget is devoid of any recognition of
this required sacrifice, because it provides $1.4 trillion in tax cuts
to the top 1 percent of American taxpayers. I say sacrifice this tax
cut, restore funding for crucial domestic programs, and get our country
back on the road to economic recovery. I have to admit that I am
astonished that at a time when our economy is struggling, the
Republicans continue to pursue tax breaks for the affluent at any cost.
Their plan is both astounding and irresponsible. The Republican budget
resolution would only prolong our country's economic downturn at a time
when we need the greatest investment in our infrastructure and in our
people.
Mr. Chairman, in these difficult and troubling times, we have a
tremendous responsibility as a Congress to protect and provide for the
needs of all Americans. But I and many of my colleagues believe that
the Republican budget plan callously throws that responsibility aside.
The Republican-proposed $1.4 trillion tax cut is a reckless measure to
pursue at this time, especially as we face war in Iraq and a continued
war on terror to defend our homeland and our hometowns.
The Republicans and the President claim that tax cuts will serve to
stimulate our economy, but the evidence does not support this
assertion. The trickle-down tax cuts of 20 years ago did not revitalize
our economy, and similar tax cuts today will not fare better. In fact,
the CBO estimates that the Republican budget will add $1.7 trillion in
deficits over the next 10 years after completely depleting the surplus
of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds.
The Republican budget balances itself on the backs of Americans who
can least afford it. It cuts Medicare by $214 billion over the next 10
years, Medicaid by $95 billion, veterans programs by $15 billion, while
giving a meager prescription drug benefit of $28 billion to our
deserving seniors. These cuts are unthinkable, and I urge my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to reject such recklessness.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the chair of the
Congressional Black Caucus for his leadership; also my colleagues the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich); and also to my staff, Julie, and all of our staffs who
really worked many long hours to craft this very fair and balanced
budget.
I rise in strong support of this budget, which really does provide a
dramatic alternative to the Republican budget. As a member of the
Congressional Black Caucus' executive committee, and also as cochair of
the Progressive Caucus, I am doubly pleased to be a cosponsor of this
joint alternative budget, which, in my opinion, represents the best
alternative on the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, we are united today in our opposition to the
irresponsible, unfair and warped priorities as expressed in the
Republican budget. We cannot and we will not support a budget that
spends more on defective technology than on school construction, safe
drinking water, vocational education and the fight against HIV and AIDS
combined. We cannot and will not support a budget that eliminates vital
support for programs such as HOPE VI, the Public Housing Drug
Elimination Program and brownfields redevelopment. We cannot and will
not support a budget which slashes after-school programs, the school
lunch program, veterans' benefits, housing programs, school loan
programs, and ignores our Nation's vital need for a meaningful economic
stimulus, including relief to the unemployed. Above all, we cannot and
we will not support a budget that puts lavish and massive tax cuts for
the wealthiest Americans above everything else, thereby mortgaging our
children's future.
What we can and what we will support, however, is this reasonable and
fair alternative. Our budget provides a real, fast-acting economic
stimulus which includes $180 billion for payroll tax relief, $50
billion for Federal revenue-sharing with States, and $50 billion for
infrastructure investment. Our budget provides health care for every
single American, a benefit that no other budget offers.
Our budget also goes well beyond the Republicans' rhetorical
commitment to education by providing serious resources. It fully funds
the Leave No Child Behind Act, invests in substantial school
construction, our Nation's teachers, vocational education and student
loan programs. It also provides critical resources to our Nation's
community development and housing programs. It creates a national
housing trust fund, restores the administration's cuts to eliminate the
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, and it provides over $1
billion for economic and community development.
In addition to funding critical programs at home, our bill also
commits substantial increases in funding toward fighting the HIV/AIDS
pandemic abroad and commits $1.2 billion over the President's
reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.
How can our budget really afford to fund these priorities? It is
really very simple. Instead of tax handouts to the wealthy, our budget
freezes the tax cuts passed in 2001, closes corporate tax loopholes,
and really does ignore President Bush's new tax cut proposals. In
short, our budget has its priorities straight.
I encourage our colleagues to join me in supporting our budget. Let
us support our troops tonight, Mr. Chairman, by passing this budget
that says in no uncertain terms that we intend to bring you home to a
country that places your economic security as our highest priority. I
thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Owens) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for
this alternative and for their hard work.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the GOP budget sends the message loud and
clear: Weapons and tax cuts are more important than people. That is bad
public policy. I know it, my constituents in Marin and Sonoma Counties
in California know it, and most of the people in the United States
agree. It is time to look at the entire picture and put together a
budget that provides support to all American families, including the
men and women in our military. That is why I rise today in support of
the Progressive/Black Caucus budget. Our budget includes support that
American families need and support that American families deserve.
Our budget includes affordable health care, because by providing
universal

[[Page H2209]]

access for a high standard of health care, no parent will have to worry
about taking their child to a doctor when that child is ill. Our budget
recognizes that real support includes educational opportunities for
every kid. It is not enough to pay lip service to the importance of
education. Instead, this budget makes a firm commitment to provide $20
billion more for school construction, for teachers, for student loans
and vocational education programs. No family, military or otherwise,
will ever feel supported if their children are not receiving a top-
notch education.
Speaking of the military, our budget recognizes that real support
includes comprehensive care for members of our military when they
return home as veterans. This budget recognizes that it is not enough
to provide servicemen and women with bombs and missiles while they
serve and then ignore the sacrifices they have made to protect our
country when they return home. That is why the Progressive/Black Caucus
budget provides over $3 billion more for funding of veterans programs
than President Bush. We do not just support our troops with bombs and
missiles, we support them along with all American families with access
to quality health care and quality schools.
I urge my colleagues to join us in providing true support for our
families by voting for the Owens-Cummings-Kucinich-Lee substitute.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Cummings-Owens-Kucinich-Lee substitute. The Republican budget contains
no specific Medicare or Medicaid cuts, but the fact is it mandates a 1
percent cut in all mandatory spending, which translates to
approximately 10-year cuts in Medicare and Medicaid of $215 billion and
$93 billion respectively. For Illinois, this means 10-year Medicare
cuts of approximately $10 billion and Medicaid cuts of more than $3
billion for the same period. Estimated cuts for my district alone are
at least $1.4 billion; cuts in public housing, cuts in education, cuts
in veterans' health care, cuts in Justice Department programs.
With the Republican budget, I am afraid that all of the bloodshed we
shall see will not be in Iraq. All I am hearing about this budget is
cut, cut, cut. I am afraid that when all you do is cut, cut, cut, all
that you are going to get is blood, blood, blood. The blood of the
American people will be on the hands of those who held the knife.
There are more than 2 million people in jails and prisons throughout
the United States. More than 600,000 of them are being released each
year. This poses a real threat and a real problem to many communities,
especially low-income areas where they come from and return. The
Justice Department reports that the cost of crime to victims is $450
billion annually. The proposed Republican House budget cuts Justice
programs $4.1 billion below the amount needed to keep up with inflation
and $881 million below the President's proposed budget. The Cummings-
Owens-Kucinich-Lee budget restores the funding level back up to $3.4
billion for Justice programs and to expand reentry programs for
nonviolent ex-offenders to help these individuals transition back into
normal life, to get housing or jobs, social service help, to be
reconciled with their families and communities, and to cut down on the
recidivism rate, which is almost 50 percent.
This is a good budget, a responsible budget, and a problem-solving
budget. I am pleased to support the Cummings-Owens-Lee-Kucinich
amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, while we obviously have some disagreements
with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the budgets and
what our budget does, I understand my colleague has a number of
speakers. We obviously do not have a number. I would be happy to
transfer 10 minutes of our time to be controlled by the gentleman so he
has an additional 10 minutes to control.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Without objection, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) will control 10 additional
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding that time to us.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left with our 10 minutes?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Counting the additional 10 minutes, the
gentleman has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, in his speech to the Nation on Monday,
the President said, ``War has no certainty but the certainty of
sacrifice.'' Many in our country are sacrificing. That list begins with
the hundreds of thousands of brave young men and women who as we speak
are putting their very lives on the line in Iraq out of a sense of duty
to their country. But there is one small group of Americans who are not
only not being asked to sacrifice, but get huge new benefits in the
Republican budget. That would be the millionaires, the richest of the
rich, who get most of the $1.4 trillion tax cut in this Republican
budget. Warren Buffett, who opposes tax cuts, would get $300 million
just from elimination of the stock dividend taxes.
Sacrifice, it seems, is only for the little people. The children
sacrifice. Head Start is cut. Health insurance, college loans, school
lunch programs are cut. Veterans are asked to sacrifice, again.
Veterans disability, education and health care benefits, cut. Seniors,
cuts in Medicaid for nursing home care, and forget a meaningful
prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Not enough money in the
Republican budget.

{time} 2045

Homeland Security, for crying out loud, a pathetic .8 percent
increase, even more when we are at orange alert and even though only
when 2 percent of containers are inspected at ports.
The country is hurting from a struggling economy and war, but this
Republican budget shamefully pours salt in the wound. A vote for the
Congressional Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus budget is a vote for
America's working families.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is simply unfair and
unrealistic. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
sacrificed prudence for politics. Long-term planning for short-term
gain. How else can we explain $1.3 trillion in tax cuts, most of which
are given to the most privileged at a time when our schools are
crumbling, our veterans are being deprived of the healthcare that they
need, and a $348 billion deficit.
The Republicans have proposed cutting $51 billion for the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, depriving 5.3 million children of
health insurance; cutting $2 billion for the Ryan White programs,
depriving people living with AIDS, medical care, and social support
they need; cutting $1.5 billion for community health centers,
eliminating health care for millions of low-income and uninsured
people; eliminating the section 8 program that provides housing for
over 300 million low-income families. Even the President's No Child
Left Behind education bill, which he constantly touts as a major
success, is cut by 8 percent below the inactive level of funding year
2003. Homeland Security is not properly funded. As a matter of fact, it
is severely underfunded, putting our police officers, firefighters, and
all of our first responders in danger. Where is the compassion that the
President promised during his campaign?
I support the Congressional Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus
alternative budget because it truly provides relief to Americans and it
provides a stimulus to help the economy get back on its feet. Our
budget provides healthcare for all Americans. It provides for vital
infrastructure improvements throughout the Nation which provide jobs
and protect America from potential terrorist threats. It provides $3.5
billion in relief to those inflicted with HIV/AIDS throughout the
world, and importantly it provides our men and women in uniform the
resources they need. It is indeed a balanced budget that does not
burden our children with debt. We must resist this Republican budget,
and I am going to urge my colleagues to support this alternative.
In conclusion, the Republican budget is an unjust and shameful
budget. If Congress enacts this budget, many Americans will be harmed.

[[Page H2210]]

Finally, Mr. Chairman, my constituents have been paying attention to
what has been going on with this preemptive strike; and when they heard
about the billions of dollars offered to Turkey and other countries in
exchange for their support, they said to me, Ms. Waters, I thought we
were broke. I thought we were in deficit. I thought we had no money.
Where are you getting the billions of dollars from for Turkey and other
countries that you are offering to them simply if they will support
this preemptive strike?
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Throughout the time that I have been a Member of Congress, it is
always the Congressional Black Caucus that has come forward with a
budget that has priorities in it that describe the aspirations that I
have for this Nation: the aspirations for quality health care, for
education, for economic opportunity, foreclosing of the gap between the
richest and the poor, between black and white. It is the Congressional
Black Caucus budget that has always been the aspirational budget and
again this evening, Mr. Chairman. It is the Congressional Black Caucus
budget which among all of the budgets is the best budget that has been
to the floor.
In a multitrillion dollar budget, there is always going to be some
parts, various things in anybody's budget that everybody can agree to.
But this is the best budget that we will debate this evening. It is the
most honest budget that we will debate this evening because we say
point blank to the American people what my constituents are saying to
me over and over again: How in the world can we be cutting taxes? How
can we be cutting taxes and spending from deficit spending? How can we
be cutting taxes for the richest people in America when we are going to
war? And my constituents ask me that all the time. I do not have any
answer for them, and some of us are honest enough to say to our
constituents we think this is a bad tax cut policy. It makes no sense
to turn around and cut taxes and then have a Republican budget that
essentially has all of our discretionary spending in every year that we
are 10 years out being funded with deficit spending. That is
outrageous. That is outrageous.
So this budget is honest. It sets the aspiration for universal
healthcare and coverage for all American citizens. It does not play
games with it; and I submit that if we pass just the health care part
of this budget, there would be so substantial a savings in our health
care industry that we would see the benefit of it just from healthier
people, from people getting preventative health care rather than
rushing to emergency rooms and getting their health care in the most
expensive and least efficient manner. That is what we have forced our
people to do in this country. We aspire to a better America. That is
what this budget does, and I ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman from
Connecticut who has so graciously yielded time for us to express
ourselves in this august Chamber, as well as the Congressional Black
Caucus and the Progressive Caucus under the leadership of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)
and of course the gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owns), the architect that put it
all together.
When Governor Bush was running for President, one would think that he
picked up a Democratic National Committee Campaign piece of literature.
He was for education, Leave No Child Behind, prescription drugs; and
when he was appointed to office by the United States Supreme Court and
he got there, he had a substantial surplus in the budget, the Social
Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund. It looked like it was
on its way to full recovery. But the programs that he had promised,
instead of getting that, what we did get was a $1.3 trillion tax cut,
most all of which went to the wealthiest Americans in our country. As a
result, as we stand here today, the surplus is gone. We have no
prescription drugs. We expect devastating cuts in the Republican
budget. And one thing that we did not know was that we would be in war.
Of course we do not like talking about that because Republicans say if
one talks about money and how much the war cost that one is preempting
the President from declaring the war; but now that the bombs are
dropping, I assume somewhere before this debate is over, somebody would
be slipping some papers to us saying what the estimated cost of the war
is.
Our budget says that this is the patriotic budget. This is the
antiterrorist budget. This is a budget that protects our young people
on the field by saying the President did not know, I do not think he
knew, that he was going onto declare war before his budget, before his
1.5 trillion tax cuts. So, therefore, what we are saying from a tax
policy is let us freeze everything. Let us just put a stop to the tax
cuts, a stop to the flooding of our deficit, and just take a look at
what America should be all about and adopt this budget as one that is
the budget of patriotism, a budget that tells the terrorists that we
believe that as the President is concerned with liberating and bringing
democracy to Iraq, as the President has a concern about bringing
democracy to the region, as the President has a concern to capture the
oil fields, increase the production, and get the revenue to improve the
education and health care of the people in Iraq, that the antiterrorist
patriotic budget says that we have the same commitment and a stronger
commitment to the people in the United States of America to provide the
health care, the affordable housing, the education to make us more
productive so that we can protect this democracy.
We want to give our men and women that are fighting in the Middle
East all the protection that they have today; and when they come home,
we will be there to say that we fought against cutting their budgets
for veterans benefits, for health benefits, and for education benefits.
Vote for the patriotic budget. That is the one that is on the floor
now.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Republican 2004 budget with its $1.3 trillion tax cuts and heavy
burdens on States and territories and of course in strong support for
the CBC/Progressive Caucus alternative budget. The Owens-Cummings-
Kucinich-Lee CBC/Progressive Caucus substitute advances the principles
of family, hard work, inclusiveness, and national solidarity by calling
for increased Federal assistance for education, health care, housing,
child care, and business development. It represents the values and
moral principles that have made America great.
As Chair of the Health Braintrust of the CBC, I am particularly
pleased that this budget reverses many of the cuts in the President's
budget which are seen as an attack on programs which would address the
health needs of minorities and women. Our budget also calls for the
implementation of a single-payer universal health care plan which will
guarantee high-standard health care at a lower cost to every person
living in the United States, its territories, and commonwealths.
My colleagues, the issue of health disparities for minorities
continues to be worse. Last year the Institute of Medicine released a
landmark report entitled ``Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and
Ethnic Disparities in Health Care,'' which documented key findings in
areas of health care where minorities receive less than adequate care
and recommended various policy changes. These recommendations are
reflected in the CBC/Progressive Caucus budget, and they include

[[Page H2211]]

increasing the budget of the Office of Minority Health, the budget of
the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities research
at the National Institutes of Health, increasing the budget of the
Office of Civil Rights to reverse the low-priority status that this
important office has in addressing racial and ethnic disparities in
health care. It also provides increases for the health professions,
including the Health Careers Opportunity program and provides
scholarships and loan repayments in order to address the startling
underrepresentation of people of color in the health professions.
Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to begin to address a number of
important problems facing the majority of our constituents, while at
the same time providing the resources needed to support our troops and
defend our homeland.

{time} 2100

Let us not give tax cuts to those who do not need them. Let us invest
in the American people, as this CBC Progressive Caucus budget does.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the
Owens-Cummings-Kucinich-Lee alternative.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican fiscal year 2004
budget resolution and in strong support of the CBC/Progressive Caucus
alternative budget. At a time when our country is facing serious
threats of terrorism, as well as waging war on Iraq, my colleagues on
the other side of the isle are ignoring current economic problems by
continuing to incorporate $1.3 trillion in additional tax cuts while
continuing to place additional burdens on the cash-strapped states.
The Owens/Cummings/Kucinich/Lee CBC/Progressive Caucus Substitute
advances the principles of family, hard work, inclusiveness and
national solidarity by calling for increased federal assistance for
education, health-care, housing, childcare and business development.
The CBC/CPC Alternative Budget represents the values and moral
principles that have made America great.
As the Chair of the CBC Health Braintrust, I am particularly pleased
that the CBC/CPC reverses many of the cuts in the President's budget
which were seen as an attack on programs to address the health needs of
minorities and women. Our budget also calls for the implementation of a
single-payer universal health care plan, which will guarantee high
standard health care at a lower cost to every person living in the
United States, its territories and Commonwealths.
My colleagues, the issue of health disparities for minorities
continues to be worse than ever. Minorities are a quarter of our
population, but make-up two-thirds of all new AIDS cases. African
American infant mortality is twice that of whites. Diabetes afflicts
Hispanics twice as often as whites. And African American men suffer
prostates cancer at a rate twice that of white men.
Last year, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, released a landmark report
entitled: Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities
in Health Care which documented key findings areas in health care where
minorities receive less than adequate care and recommended various
policy changes to eliminate these unacceptable disparities.
These recommendations included specific funding increases, which the
CBC/CPC budget proposes. They include increasing the budget of the
Office of Minority Health; the budget of the National Center for
Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institute of
Health and increasing the budget of the Office of Civil Rights at the
Departments of HHS to reverse the low-priority status that this
important office in addressing racial and ethnic disparities in health
care. We also provide increases for funding for Initiatives for Health
Professions including the Health Careers Opportunity program, and to
provide scholarship and loan repayment relief in order to address the
startling under representation of ethnic and minority groups in the
health professions.
Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to begin to address a number of
the major problems facing the majority of our constituents while at the
same time provide the resources needed to support our troops and defend
our homeland. We can only do this however if we do not follow the wrong
lead of our majority colleagues and cut taxes for people who don't need
it at a time when we must increase spending.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the
Owens/Cummings/Kucinich/Lee alternative budget.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Maryland, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for yielding
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget
resolution tonight, and I strongly endorse the Congressional Black
Caucus-Progressive Caucus budget resolution and our Democratic
alternative.
Immediately after the Republicans passed their budget out of
committee, one of the first groups that I heard from to object to their
proposal was the American Legion. Representing America's honorable
veterans, the American Legion stated that, ``The budget defies common
sense. There must be a better way to provide tax relief to the American
people than to balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans.''
Disabled American Veterans call the House Committee on the Budget
budget ``indefensible and callous.'' They represent nearly 1.3 million
disabled veterans in the country, and they believe the Republican
budget asks veterans to ``swallow a bitter pill to remedy an illness of
their own making.''
Republicans are calling for a $15 billion cut in veteran benefits
over the next 10 years. Over $800 million will be cut in health care
programs for veterans next year alone. These budget cuts will impact a
very large population in my own district.
I would like to just let the Members know in my own district we have
over 28,000 veterans from all former wars that are still alive that
reside in my district. Many are minority veterans. Mr. Chairman, 1.4
million of those veterans live in the Los Angeles County area; 2.3
million of those veterans live in the State of California.
We must keep in mind that among our troops being sent abroad right
now are many young men and women representing our State of California.
I know that, because I had an opportunity to meet with many of them in
my district. I met three of them, three young women, two Asian women
and one Latino. One was a student enrolled in college, telling me that
her dream was to come back and become a teacher. The other two were in
their profession. They almost had tears in their eyes, telling me that
they had actually joined up to be in the Reserve unit, not knowing they
would now be faced with something that was unimaginable. I pray for
them, and I pray for their families.
Mr. Chairman, I know that what we are doing here tonight is very
exemplary, by supporting the Black Caucus budget, the Progressive
Caucus and the Democratic alternative, because we care about families,
we care about the very people that are spending their time this evening
defending our Nation.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me time.
First of all, let me thank the proponents of this budget. As the
world watches, as the Nation watches, I believe most Americans as they
pray for the troops are wondering whether or not we are caring for them
and their needs.
I thank the distinguished chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus,
but I also thank the proponents and writers and authors of this
legislation, particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) and any number of individuals, and, as I said, the gentleman
from Maryland (Chairman Cummings).
This is a budget that addresses the pain of America. It realizes that
it is extremely unrealistic, Mr. Chairman, with the war looming, the
needs of home-front security, to give, as the Republican budget wants
to do, $726 billion in tax cuts to 1 percent of America. One percent of
the rich of America will be getting the big chunk of the Republican
budget.
What a tragedy that as our firefighters are laid off, police persons
are not being paid and EMS services are

[[Page H2212]]

cut back, we cannot find the good reason to have a bipartisan budget.
The Congressional Black Caucus budget and the Progressive Caucus
budget deals with the pain of America. It provides additional funds for
job training and family services. It ensures that education is
prioritized, and it really does support No Child Left Behind.
In addition, when we talk about defense, we have unique initiatives;
a defense school readiness initiative, which provides for
communications equipment and training to public schools; a strategic
language and culture initiative that funds higher education initiatives
for the study of key languages.
Then we deal with unemployment insurance for the thousands of
individuals laid off. We give them an extension in unemployment. Mr.
Chairman, let me tell you, we are going to be laying off Americans.
Then with respect to health care, we believe in funding Medicaid so
that the least of those who cannot get into our various health
facilities will be able to do so. And we support our veterans. We do
not throw them out in the street because they do not have the money.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that America is looking to this
Congress tonight to be receptive to their pain and their need. Who will
stand with us and vote for this legislation? I ask my colleagues to
vote for this budget and vote against the Republican budget.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman of the
Congressional Black Caucus for yielding me time, and especially for his
leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus and
Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, which I am proud to support.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment to say that there are a
lot of people suffering in our Nation tonight.
The Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus believe
very strongly that we must have a very balanced approach to addressing
our budget concerns. On the one hand, we must be clear to protect
ourselves against terrorism, and we must be clear with regard to
supporting our troops. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, we must be
clear in taking care of the people who have worked so hard to make this
Nation the Nation that it is.
We must work hard, Mr. Chairman, and this is what the Congressional
Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus budget does, to help folks like Mr.
Shapiro in Baltimore, who said he had been working for years on a
prescription drug program, but give me something that is meaningful,
because I am about to die. But maybe you can do this for my fellow
people in my housing project. Or perhaps it is for the little girl in
the eighth grade at West Baltimore Middle School in my district, who
still is reading from a textbook where Jimmy Carter is still President.
Or it might be the students who are in the honors class at another
school in my district, who have no microscopes on their desks, but they
are supposed to go on and become great biologists. Then the question
becomes, are we taking care of all of our people?
I have often said that we have to protect ourselves from the outside,
but we have to be very careful that we do not implode from the inside.
So the fact is that the Congressional Black Caucus and the
Progressive Caucus have presented a budget tonight which is one that
takes care of our health needs. It is one that truly leaves no family
behind. It is one that makes sure that the young people at Morgan State
University in Baltimore, where we have to let go 1,000 students every
year because they do not have the money, it makes sure that they have
the Pell grants that they need.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the House to support the Black Caucus-
Progressive Caucus budget.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding part of his time to us. We really
appreciate it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say that we appreciate the work that went into
the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus substitute. We
understand that they, more than most Members in this House of
Representatives, know that there are people suffering tonight. So we do
not dispute that fact.
But we believe that the best way to help people who are suffering is
first to protect America at home and abroad with a strong national
defense and a strong Department of Homeland Security, to strengthen the
economy, and create jobs, and to be fiscally responsible. We really
believe that is the best way to help people who are suffering.
Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague and I would both agree that we
would like to have a budget that is balanced today. We might come to a
different conclusion as to why we have gotten to this point. The
economy has slowed; I believe that September 11, a day that I will
remember in infamy, had something to do with it; and we believe that
the best way to get us out of this kind of lull in our economy is to
provide an economic engine, which we believe are tax cuts.
So we are providing an increase in defense spending, homeland
security, Social Security, Medicare and veterans. We are asking for a 1
percent reduction, a penny on the dollar, this year, in discretionary
and mandatory programs. We think this 1 cent on the dollar for 1 year
is something that we can do as mature and responsible Members of the
Congress. Lord knows our political colleagues in the statehouses and in
local communities are having to make much more difficult decisions.
I would conclude by saying that when I hear references of who is
getting the taxes, we acknowledge this: That the people who pay taxes
get the tax cuts. That is true. Five percent of the American people pay
50 percent of the taxes, and 50 percent of the American people pay 96.5
percent of the taxes, and they get the tax cut. But we also know when
they get this tax cut, they use it to invest in America and create jobs
for all Americans.
I know we have another budget to consider, so I will conclude my
remarks. I appreciate the dialogue that has taken place on the floor
tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not support this budget
substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). All time for debate has
expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 85,
noes 340, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 80]

AYES--85

Ackerman
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Majette
Maloney
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--340

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter

[[Page H2213]]

Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Buyer
Dooley (CA)
Gephardt
Hyde
Lipinski
Mollohan
Thornberry
Towns
Udall (CO)

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain on this vote.

{time} 2132

Ms. McCOLLUM and Messrs. UDALL of New Mexico, HEFLEY, CANNON,
KANJORSKI, PALLONE, and SAXTON changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. JONES of Ohio and Ms. MAJETTE changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 4 in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 108-44, as
modified by the special order of today.

Part B Amendment No. 4 in the Nature of a Substitute, as Modified,
Offered by Mr. Spratt

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4 in the nature of a
substitute, as modified.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as modified.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified,
is as follows:

Part B Amendment No. 4 in the nature of a substitute, as
modified, offered by Mr. Spratt:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2004.

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2003 through 2013:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $1,272,734,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,482,270,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,612,826,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,753,572,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,871,037,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,988,889,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,106,276,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,234,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,454,496,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,638,779,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,779,210,000,000.
(B)(i) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be reduced for the following fiscal years are
as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $87,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $25,000,000,000.
(ii) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be increased for the following fiscal years
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $15,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $12,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $17,871,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $25,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $27,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $40,960,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $27,000,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $1,831,543,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,867,617,000,000
Fiscal year 2005: $1,977,048,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,105,672,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,222,302,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,336,955,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,442,555,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,550,402,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,681,736,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,770,347,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,869,957,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $1,818,315,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,858,102,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,963,008,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,071,052,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,184,699,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,300,905,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,413,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,525,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,663,603,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,737,816,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,873,559,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $545,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $375,832,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $350,182,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $317,480,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $313,662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $312,016,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $306,728,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $291,320,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $209,108,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $99,037,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $94,349,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $6,783,510,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $7,238,529,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $7,695,289,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $8,140,057,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $8,582,792,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,027,564,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $9,468,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $9,898,898,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $10,250,582,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $10,498,763,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $10,743,438,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003: $3,954,143,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $4,153,648,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,317,014,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $4,435,047,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $4,526,162,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $4,594,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $4,638,044,000,000.

[[Page H2214]]

Fiscal year 2010: $4,646,359,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $4,553,659,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $4,335,482,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $4,097,406,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2003 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $392,494,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $386,229,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $400,546,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $400,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $420,071,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,237,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $440,185,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,011,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $460,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $438,656,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $480,886,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $462,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $490,817,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $478,499,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $500,590,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $491,801,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $511,603,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $507,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $522,781,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $511,780,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $534,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $528,178,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $22,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $24,873,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,808,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $28,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $31,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,799,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $32,591,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $33,557,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,719,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $34,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,818,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $35,150,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,743,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $36,001,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,590,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $36,845,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,408,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $37,699,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,274,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $23,153,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,556,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $23,525,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $24,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,618,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $25,112,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $25,949,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,097,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $26,722,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,833,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $27,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,528,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $28,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,183,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $28,687,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,847,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $29,372,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,520,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $30,062,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,198,000,000.
(4) Energy (270)
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $2,074,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $439,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $2,587,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $929,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $2,710,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $962,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $2,613,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,245,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,432,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,023,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $2,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,402,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,977,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,663,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $3,085,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,784,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $3,182,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,957,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $3,289,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,319,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $3,402,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,295,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $30,816,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,940,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $32,894,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,212,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $33,589,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,403,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $34,567,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,991,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $35,393,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $36,272,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,424,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $37,690,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $38,838,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,845,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $39,958,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,956,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $40,980,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $42,003,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,032,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $24,418,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $25,212,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,909,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $27,272,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,047,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $27,129,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,934,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $26,681,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,521,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $25,911,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,772,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $26,510,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,534,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $25,979,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $25,441,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $25,038,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,230,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $24,777,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,695,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $8,812,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,881,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $7,513,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,588,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $8,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,062,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $8,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,580,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $8,687,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $8,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,575,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,013,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,723,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $9,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,468,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $9,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,086,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,347,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,708,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $9,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,878,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $64,091,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,847,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $66,467,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,384,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $67,565,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,819,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $68,782,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:

[[Page H2215]]

(A) New budget authority, $70,053,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,731,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $71,238,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,328,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $72,512,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,025,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $73,783,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,812,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $75,585,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,692,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $77,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,690,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $79,265,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,732,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12,251,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,994,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $14,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,205,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,128,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,479,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $15,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,754,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $15,759,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,674,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $16,152,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,256,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $16,519,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $16,906,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,914,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $17,306,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $17,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,676,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $18,110,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,079,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $82,699,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,455,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $89,231,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $90,187,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,153,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $92,372,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,751,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $94,186,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,333,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $96,078,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,182,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $98,047,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,090,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $100,149,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $99,155,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $102,497,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,344,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $104,761,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $107,105,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,956,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $231,653,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $227,796,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $238,353,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $236,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $253,424,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $253,184,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $271,423,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $270,524,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $292,423,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $290,938,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $314,333,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $312,907,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $337,338,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $335,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $363,412,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $360,992,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $391,476,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $389,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $422,084,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $420,023,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $455,673,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $453,522,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $248,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,434,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $261,750,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $262,022,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $276,023,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $278,953,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $319,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $316,006,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $351,571,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $351,822,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $379,712,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $379,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $409,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $409,553,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $441,465,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $442,719,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $484,282,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $487,635,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $522,221,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $518,390,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $565,545,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $565,794,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $322,074,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $329,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $322,458,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $324,488,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $332,172,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $333,684,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $340,968,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,304,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $349,004,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $350,185,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $362,022,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $362,757,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $373,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $374,367,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $386,204,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $387,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $403,672,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $404,893,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $395,443,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $396,952,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $410,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $412,578,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $13,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $14,345,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,282,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,467,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $16,591,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,568,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,117,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,011,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,994,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $22,213,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,197,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $24,511,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,494,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $28,395,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,376,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $31,615,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,596,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $34,679,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,660,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $57,597,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $62,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,665,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $67,684,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $65,814,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,606,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $64,709,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,288,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $68,810,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $70,492,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,236,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $72,282,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,975,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $77,034,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $76,712,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $74,059,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,550,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $78,960,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,515,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $38,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,712,000,000.

[[Page H2216]]

Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $41,193,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,631,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $39,934,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,424,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $40,192,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,133,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $40,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,510,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $42,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,668,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $43,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,905,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $44,752,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,211,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $46,131,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,577,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $47,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,971,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $48,987,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,414,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $18,178,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $20,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,820,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $20,643,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,677,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $20,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $20,842,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,533,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,920,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,619,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $22,361,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $23,110,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,560,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $23,905,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $24,714,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,121,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $240,447,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $240,447,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $257,374,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $257,374,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $300,930,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $300,930,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $335,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $335,137,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $357,478,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $357,478,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $377,426,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $377,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $396,894,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $396,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $414,220,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,220,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $430,321,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $430,321,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $442,545,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $442,545,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $449,801,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $449,801,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $39,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $4,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $4,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $4,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $6,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $6,519,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,519,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $4,174,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,174,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $4,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,329,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $4,634,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,634,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $2,440,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $2,796,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,796,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$41,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$41,104,000,000.
(A) New budget authority, -$42,894,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$42,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,598,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,598,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,459,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,459,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$51,535,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$51,535,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$53,540,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$53,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,609,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,685,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,685,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$56,841,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$56,841,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$59,025,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,025,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$61,229,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$61,229,000,000.
TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

(a) Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.--In the House, if
the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, or both committees report a bill, or an amendment
is offered thereto or a conference report thereon is
submitted, which provides a prescription drug benefit under
the medicare program that is voluntary, equitable,
comprehensive, affordable, dependable, protects beneficiary
access to drugs, and is cost effective, the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget shall revise allocations and
adjust aggregates in this resolution by the amount
provided by that measure for that purpose, subject to
section 203.
(b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) The term ``equitable'' means that all medicare
beneficiaries shall receive comprehensive prescription drug
coverage and that coverage shall be accessible to all
beneficiaries regardless of where they live.
(2) The term ``comprehensive, affordable, and dependable''
means that all beneficiaries shall have access to a drug
benefit that contains a defined benefit and premium and
coverage at all levels of drug spending, is administered
through a stable and dependable delivery system so that
beneficiaries will not lose coverage or face significant
premium increases from one year to the next, and provides
additional assistance with premiums and cost sharing to low-
income beneficiaries.
(3) The term ``protects beneficiary access to drugs'' means
that the benefit shall include coverage for all medically
necessary drugs and shall preserve access to local
pharmacies.
(4) The term ``cost effective'' means that the benefit
shall include measures that lower the cost of prescription
drugs and not include measures that would encourage employers
to drop existing retiree coverage.

SEC. 202. RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THE
UNINSURED.

In the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, or both committees report a
bill, or an amendment is offered thereto or a conference
report thereon is submitted, that would provide affordable,
comprehensive health insurance coverage to the uninsured and
builds upon and strengthens public and private coverage,
including preventing the erosion of existing coverage under
medicaid, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
revise allocations and adjust aggregates and in this
resolution by the amount provided by that measure for that
purpose, subject to section 203.

SEC. 203. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS TO ALLOW FOR MEDICARE
PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT AND HEALTH INSURANCE
COVERAGE.

The total of adjustments allowed under sections 201 and 202
shall not increase the cumulative deficit or decrease the
cumulative surplus (whether by changes in revenues or direct
spending) by more than $131,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008 and $528,000,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013, excluding interest.

SEC. 204. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

(a) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.--In the
House, if the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment
thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is
submitted, that provides new budget authority for the budget
accounts or portions thereof in the highway and transit
categories as defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in
excess of the following amounts:
(1) for fiscal year 2004: $39,233,000,000,
(2) for fiscal year 2005: $39,998,000,000,
(3) for fiscal year 2006: $40,841,000,000,
(4) for fiscal year 2007: $41,684,000,000, or
(5) for fiscal year 2008: $42,605,000,000,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the
appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of
new

[[Page H2217]]

budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2004 and
for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to the
extent such excess is offset by a reduction in mandatory
outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or an increase in
receipts appropriated to such fund for the applicable fiscal
year caused by such legislation or any previously enacted
legislation.
(b) Adjustment for Outlays.--In the House, if a bill or
joint resolution is reported, or if an amendment thereto is
offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that
changes obligation limitations such that the total
limitations are in excess of $38,594,000,000 for fiscal year
2004, for programs, projects, and activities within the
highway and transit categories as defined in sections
250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 and if legislation has been
enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in subsection
(a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget may increase the allocation of outlays for such
fiscal year for the committee reporting such measure by the
amount of outlays that corresponds to such excess obligation
limitations, but not to exceed the amount of such excess that
was offset pursuant to subsection (a).
TITLE III--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDING FOR
HOMELAND SECURITY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the President's budget includes a total of $41.3
billion for all homeland security activities for 2004,
including mandatory, discretionary, and fee-funded
activities;
(2) the President's current budget does not contain any
additional funding for 2003 for homeland security beyond what
has already been provided; and
(3) there is need for additional homeland security
resources for 2003, 2004, and subsequent years in order to
protect our country against terrorist attacks.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) this resolution provides $10 billion in additional
homeland security funding for 2003, and a total of $24
billion in additional homeland security funding in the years
2004-13, for a total of $34 billion above the President's
request over the time period covered by this resolution; and
(2) this funding provides the resources needed to train and
equip our first responders, strengthen the security of the
Nation's transportation system and other critical
infrastructure, increase the preparedness of our public
health system, and secure our borders.

SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE CONSERVATION
SPENDING CATEGORY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the fiscal year 2001 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L.
106-291), which established a separate discretionary spending
category for land conservation and natural resource
protection programs for the fiscal years 2001 through 2006,
passed by large margins in both the House and the Senate;
(2) in establishing a separate conservation spending
category, Congress recognized the chronic underfunding of
programs that protect and enhance public lands, wildlife
habitats, urban parks, historic and cultural landmarks, and
coastal ecosystems; and
(3) the expiration of the provisions of law defining and
enforcing the conservation spending category was not due to a
lack of Congressional support for the programs included in
the category or a loss of desire to set aside dedicated funds
for those programs.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that any law establishing new caps on discretionary spending
should include a separate conservation spending category for
fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006 and that total funding for
that category for each of those fiscal years should be set at
the levels established in P.L. 106-291.

SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING CONTINGENCY AND
PRIORITY RESERVE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that this budget resolution
provides a total of $54 billion of unallocated funds that
have been counted as though spent, including the consequent
cost of debt service.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of Congress
that the $54 billion reserve in this resolution should be
considered to provide funding for any contingencies and
priorities that may arise.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and a Member opposed each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, we have had two responsible alternatives
offered. Mr. Chairman, this substitute should pass, and it should pass
with an overwhelming number of votes from both sides of the aisle. Why?
Because it is the fiscally responsible alternative that remains on this
floor.
The Republican budget is an appalling betrayal of America's values
and fails to meet our Nation's priorities. We really have to wonder,
how does this Republican Party define compassion? By taking hot lunches
out of the mouths of poor schoolchildren? By forcing the elderly out of
nursing homes as the result of Medicaid cuts? By skimping on a
prescription drug benefit for seniors? By slashing veterans health care
on the very day, on the very day that our brave Armed Forces have begun
the battle to disarm Saddam Hussein?
It is clear that the President's irresponsible $1.4 trillion tax plan
and the GOP's blind allegiance to it would be an albatross around the
necks of the American people, as well as future generations.
To pay for it, the House GOP proposes to cut funding for Medicaid,
student loans, scientific research, food stamps, education, and
veterans benefits. Too often, those of us privileged to serve here
speak in terms of billions or trillions. Well, tonight, Mr. Chairman,
let us put a human face on these proposed budget cuts.
More than 90 students at the Eva Turner Elementary School in Waldorf,
Maryland, who receive hot meals under the lunch program could have
those meals eliminated.
Ervin Coleman of Prince George's County, who recently was forced to
rely on Medicaid to cover the cost of his medical care, may not have
that option under the Republican budget.
Rubin Hairston of Calvert County receives $654 a month in Social
Security benefits, but his prescription drug cost is $519. He simply
cannot afford all his medication. The meager funding set aside for a
drug benefit in this budget offers him little hope of relief.
I ask Members, is that a budget that reflects America's values? Is
that a budget that meets America's priorities? Mr. Chairman, the
American people want and deserve better. That is precisely what this
Democratic budget alternative gives them.
First and foremost, our budget includes our entire stimulus plan,
which would jumpstart the economy, provide tax relief, and create 1
million new jobs. Our budget provides more funding for homeland
security, $34 billion for safety here at home; more funding for
education; and more funding for the environment, veterans, and other
priorities. We also provide at least 35 percent more for prescription
drugs.
Finally, our budget matches the President's defense request, protects
Social Security, and achieves balance by 2010. Democrats urge all
Americans to examine our budget and ask themselves which budget
reflects America's values and meets our needs. The answer is clear.
The Republican budget is nothing more than a cynical, calculated
political document designed solely to provide huge tax cuts to the most
affluent. It will continue the deficit spiral and pass the debt along
to the brave young men and women who are now in harm's way. That is not
moral, it is not fiscally responsible, and it is pitiful policy.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the Democratic budget for
America and for generations to come.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) claim time in opposition?
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, this
substitute. We have come forward with a budget that provides
significant increases in defense, homeland security, Social Security,
Medicare, veterans benefits. We ask for a 1 percent cut in
discretionary spending for 1 year, one cent on the dollar. When our
States and local communities are having to make 5 and 10 percent cuts
to their budget, we are asking 1 percent; and then we allow our budget
to go up each and every year after that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the tax cut in the Republican proposal
for 2004 is a tax cut of $1.4 trillion, which is very close to the cost
of the war effort. I find that not only to be interesting, but
something that we need to take a look at very, very closely.

[[Page H2218]]

I think, when all is said and done on all of these different budget
proposals, the one thing I think is absolutely sure is we have reverse
socialism. What we are doing here is redistributing the wealth of this
country to the top. John McCain was right-on when he said that 3\1/2\
weeks ago.
We have been accused on this side of the aisle year after year of
trying to manipulate the budget, to manufacture the budget, so the
money is going to be shifted down to those people who are making less
than $50,000 a year. This is not the case over the next 10 years. We
have a redistributing of the dollar upward. That is a fact of life. Yet
what we have done at the same time, not because one side of the aisle
thinks more of the veterans of this country than the other, but in
order to fit it into their budget, what they had to do is nickel and
dime the veterans, who have already put their lives on the line. Yet we
send young men and women to war. What guarantee are we going to give
them when they come back that their benefits are going to be intact?
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), who, I would just point out, without
embarrassing my colleague, is an American hero, and someone who can
speak very clearly about what our men and women are going through.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I did not know if I was going to vote
for this budget, but after the partisan rancor that I just heard on
this floor, I am going to vote for it. It is despicable.
Talk about hurting veterans, talk about cutting Social Security. In
1993 when they had the White House, the House, and the Senate, what did
they do? They spoke and talked about tax breaks for the middle class,
tax breaks for the middle class. What did they do? They had the highest
tax in the history of this Nation. They cut the COLAs of veterans. They
cut the COLAs of our active duty military.

{time} 2145

Where you said you were going to decrease the tax for the middle
class, you increased the tax for the middle class. You took and
utilized every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund, and you had
the gall, you have the gall to stand up here and accuse us of only for
the rich.
Not a single Clinton budget after you controlled the White House, the
House and the Senate ever passed this body or the other body. We
brought up those budgets so that the Democrats would have to vote on
them. They were so bad, and you know how many Democrats voted for it?
Three. That is a fact because I will tell the gentleman, I thought we
were going to have a debate, not a finger-pointing thing here tonight,
and I had not planned even on speaking until I heard the speakers speak
before me, and I had questions about our budget, but not after the
rancor that I have heard on this floor.
You did in 1993 raise taxes. You did cut veterans' COLAs. You cut
military COLAs. You raised the tax on the middle class, and now you
stand here and say, oh, we want to balance a budget, and that we are
responsible for the surplus, but not a single one of your policies ever
passed when you had the leadership.
It is sickening to listen to this debate. The gentleman that is
speaking here, normally I would and I would say even tonight his
language has been honorary, and the different budgets that he has
presented has been honorary, and I appreciate that, but for those that
will sit up here and point fingers and say how mean the Republicans are
because they want to cut veterans' COLAs or they want to hurt things is
absolutely ridiculous.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to say that in 1993 we passed a budget. We took the
deficit then in the budget, $290 billion, down every year for the next
7 years until it reached a surplus in the year 2000 of $236 billion, an
exact polar opposite of what is happening right now.
Nobody in this House stands in greater admiration of the gentleman
from California's (Mr. Cunningham) record in the military than I do and
my personal like for the man, but I think we have to acknowledge that
these fellow veterans, four different groups, have all come out in
unmitigated condemnation of this budget because of what it does to
veterans' benefits, and nobody shows greater indignation than the
Paralyzed Veterans of America who wrote the Speaker saying, we do not
consider payments to war-disabled veterans, pensions for the poorest
disabled veterans and GI benefits for soldiers returning from
Afghanistan to be waste, fraud and abuse.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California may not like
what Democrats are saying about the Republican budget, so let us listen
to what others are saying about that budget.
Unconscionable, that is what four veterans organizations called the
Republican budget. Callous, that is how the American Legion, Disabled
American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars describe the Republican
budget. Perhaps Edward Heath, Sr., the national commander of the
Disabled American Veterans, said it best when he said this: ``Mr.
Speaker, this budget dishonors the service of millions of service-
connected disabled veterans, including combat-disabled veterans. Is
there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government?'' Well
said, Commander Heath.
In just a few minutes we are going to be voting to support our
troops. I must say, Mr. Chairman, to my Republican colleagues, what an
odd way to support our troops when we are also going to be voting
tonight, at least they are going to be voting, to cut veterans'
benefits and services by $28 billion.
I would say that our veterans and our troops would appreciate it more
if we supported them with our deeds, not our words, and that is why I
am going to support the Spratt substitute, because the American Legion
said it is a better approach. Not only does it not cut veterans'
benefits, it keeps our commitments to veterans. It invests in our
children's future rather than borrowing from it.
The Spratt budget, the Democratic budget, creates jobs, not deficits,
for as far as the eye can see. We should vote for the Spratt budget. We
should listen to the voice of the veteran leaders of America and say no
to the callous budget of the Republican Party.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Democratic budget and
oppose the Republican budget.
When Bill Clinton left office, we had record surpluses of $200
billion, and in two short years, we have a deficit of $300 billion,
deficits as far as the eye can see.
Yes, there was a downturn in the economy. Yes, 9/11 caused part of
it, but a large part of it were those tax cuts. What are the
Republicans giving us now? More tax cuts for the wealthy as far as the
eye can see.
Never in American history has there been a proposal for tax cuts at
the time of war. This is so fiscally irresponsible that I just cannot
believe it. We are leaving a legacy of debt to our children and our
grandchildren, and the Republicans want to give us deeper and deeper
and deeper debt and dig us deeper into a hole.
There is no economic growth in the Republican budget. There is no
real drug plan in the Republican budget. The Democratic budget has $128
million more for prescription drugs, $34 billion more for homeland
security. The Republican budget gives us cuts to veterans and schools
and Medicaid and to our senior citizens.
The Democratic budget is responsible. The Republican budget
subordinates all other priorities to additional lavish tax cuts. Vote
for the Democratic budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking member for
yielding me the time.
We have talked a lot about what is in the budget. I would like to
talk about two things that are not in the budget. The first
particularly should be of interest to people who live in Washington
State, my home State, Tennessee, Texas, Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida or
South Dakota.
Residents of those seven States are unjustly treated in the Tax Code,
and

[[Page H2219]]

this budget does nothing to correct it. Those States rely on sales tax
to fund their State governments, but they are not allowed to deduct
their sales tax from their Federal tax return as one is allowed to
deduct their State income tax.
What that does is it disadvantages our State. The Federal Government
essentially tells our States how we should tax our citizens. I believe
it is an issue of State rights.
The Democratic Party introduced an amendment to the budget bill to
fix this. Regrettably, the other side voted that down.
The second thing that is not made allowance for in this budget is
fixing the Medicare payment imbalance. Forty-seven percent of
physicians in my home State, in Washington, will not see new Medicare
patients. Why? Because the fee-for-service rates under Medicare are
unjust. This is the case in the Committee on the Budget chairman's home
State of Iowa.
We had an opportunity to provide language in this bill to fix it. We
managed to provide language to protect tax cuts, but we do not seem to
be able to provide language to protect people for tax fairness, and we
do not seem to be able to provide language to assure fair Medicare
compensation rates.
I urge the people from those States to ask their Representatives, why
have they left us out in the cold? Why have they not solved the sales
tax inequity? Why have they not fixed the imbalance in Medicare
payments?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chair of our caucus.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time and for his work.
The budget is more than a series of numbers. It is about priorities
and values and visions and commitments. It is about the kind of America
we want to build. It is about the kind of Nation we want to bequeath to
our children. It is about the future.
Will we have a future of debts and deficits or a future with a
balanced budget? Will we have a future where seniors have access to the
medications they need, or one where they will have to choose between
life-saving prescriptions and putting food on the table? Will we have a
future where every child gets the education he or she deserves, or one
where many children arrive into adulthood unprepared for the jobs and
challenges of the 21st century? Will we have a future where Medicare
and Social Security are there for our retirees, or one where the
funding runs out? Will we have a future where our cities and States
have funding they need to hire, train and supply our local first
responders, our first line of defense against terrorism, or will we
leave them and their communities defenseless? Will we have a future
where our veterans have all of the benefits and services they need and
deserve, or will we have a future where their sacrifices go
unappreciated?
On every single count, the Democratic plan provides a future where
the priorities and values of the American people are met and fulfilled,
and on every single count the Republican budget shortchanges these
priorities of the American people by sacrificing them on the altar of a
massive round of additional tax breaks and tax cuts. Their budget makes
no fiscal sense, it makes no moral sense, and it makes no practical
sense.
We are, as I speak, as we debate, at war. Our men and women in
uniform are fighting for our way of life, and we all stand behind them
in their mission, but the Republican budget cuts $14.6 billion from
mandatory veterans' benefits, including disability, burial benefits,
pensions, rehabilitation, housing and education, and that is a
disgrace, a disgrace. Our soldiers are fighting to protect our way of
life, and Democrats believe we have a duty to protect them.
Fiscally irresponsible tax breaks are not the answer to every
problem. I believe our way of life is about more than just tax
giveaways. Our way of life is about educating our children, taking care
of the needs of our seniors, and building an America we can all be
proud of.
The Democratic budget takes care of these priorities. The Republican
budget does not. It is that clear, it is that simple, and the choice
for Members is to vote for a future with promise and hope, or vote for
a future with massive debt and broken commitments.
I urge my colleagues to look into their hearts, make the right choice
and support the Democratic alternative.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for
yielding me the time, and I want to agree with my friend from New
Jersey, the previous speaker. This debate is about where our priorities
are, and a budget is about where our priorities are in government, and
we just have a disagreement on the floor of the House of
Representatives. We have it year after year after year.
Clearly, my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle are willing to
accept higher taxes so that Federal spending can increase at a faster
and faster rate. That is their viewpoint. We, on the other hand,
believe that tax restraint brings about economic growth and jobs, and
that is a lot of what this debate is about tonight.
I have heard debate on this bill throughout the afternoon and
evening, and I have heard things like the Republican budget slashes
spending, we are taking hot meals away from schoolchildren, we are
taking needed benefits away from our citizens, we are denying health
care. Someone just said we are leaving people out in the cold. These
are the very same arguments that we have heard year after year after
year, debate after debate, on the budget resolution.

{time} 2200

I would submit to my colleagues that hot meals have not been taken
away from school children, benefits have not been taken away from our
citizens, we have not denied health care or left people out in the
cold.
With regard to slashing spending, I would like Members to look at
chart number 26 which shows spending trends. Since I became a Member of
this Congress in 1995, spending has gone up at a quite remarkable rate.
All we are asking with regard to discretionary spending from the year
2003 to the year 2004 is just a very, very modest breather. After that
discretionary spending continues to increase at a pace which probably
would embarrass some of our conservatives. But this is the definition
of slashing spending for some of our colleagues. So we need to decide
if that is exactly what this is.
Moving to the next chart, a statement was made about the Clinton tax
increase, and I hope Members can see this. I have a different view and
I have a different recollection about the Clinton tax increase and the
result of it. When I got to Congress in the winter of 1995, President
Clinton, who had just presided over a very large tax increase, came
before the Congress and proposed his budget. I did not see a balanced
budget at the end of that rainbow. I saw deficits as indicated on this
line as far as the eye could see. As a matter of fact, under the
Clinton budget after tax increases, the deficit would have gone up to
$288 billion per year.
Now Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate felt
we could do a better job, and part of that solution was tax reductions.
Indeed, we did reduce taxes. And guess what, we said we will balance
the budget by restraining spending, by making some of those tough
decisions which other people criticized as slashing and leaving people
out in the cold. Lo and behold, in a shorter time than we even
predicted, we had a balanced budget.
Looking at the last chart, we seek tax reduction for one reason and
one reason only, to grow this economy. I want to remind Members of a
time when we were spending a larger percentage of the gross domestic
product on national defense than we are today, a larger percentage of
the economy than we are having to do in this Iraq situation, and that
was in 1981 and 1982 when President Reagan ushered in a very meaningful
tax cut for the American people. Did we have to slash programs? As a
matter of fact, revenue grew almost every year after the Reagan tax
cuts because the economy grew. That is what we are trying to do with
our tax policy here.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WICKER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman put up the chart that was

[[Page H2220]]

up earlier showing Clintonomics versus the last chart and agree that
perhaps spending grew in those years because revenue for the government
grew as well, and perhaps that President and this Congress, Democrats
and Republicans, did a darn good job of helping the economy to grow.
Can the gentleman concede that point?
Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time, I would concede this, that President
Reagan raised taxes and the very next year he was up here proposing
deficits as far as the eye could see.
When we cut taxes, as President Reagan did, the economy grows. These
are simply the facts. Revenues to the government grew because people
had jobs and they were working. I urge a defeat of this Democrat
proposal, and a ``yes'' vote on final passage.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me follow up on what the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) stated. I was here in 1993, and
I voted for that. It was the hardest vote I ever made, but it worked.
And it was not because of the Republican majorities in 1995. It was
because of a bipartisan effort that we had a balanced budget and
surpluses in the late 1990s. Now they are gone.
That is why I rise in opposition to the Republican budget and support
the Spratt substitute amendment. This Republican budget does not
provide enough. We know what we are going to have to pay for the
military campaign in Iraq, which could range as high as $100 billion,
and which programs will have to be cut to underwrite that $100 billion.
What we know about this budget is it contains a monstrous tax cut that
is paid for out of the expense of almost everything, including
veterans, the war effort, prescription drugs for seniors. Let me repeat
that. This tax cut affects some of the most critical entitlement
programs, school lunches, student loans, veterans programs, and
Medicaid and Medicare.
In my own committee, we are asked to cut $107 billion out of Medicaid
and literally give pennies to prescription drugs to seniors. That is
why the Spratt substitute is so good.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just to walk down memory lane, during the Clinton
years, we created 21 million jobs. So far, during the Bush years, we
have seen 2.5 million private sector jobs disappear. In December 2000
before President Clinton left office and President Bush took office,
there were 5.17 million people unemployed. This year in January 2003,
it is 8.4 million unemployed.
We can go down the list. Real GDP during the Clinton years increased
at a rate of 6.3 percent from 1993 through 2000. So far it has
increased at a rate of 1.5 percent, and the budget every year from 1993
onward, the bottom line of the budget, the so-called deficit got better
and better and better under that budget that we adopted in 1993. It
went from a record deficit of $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion the
next year, $203 billion the next year, $164 billion in 1995, $107
billion in 1996, $22 billion in 1997, and balanced for the first time
in 30 years in 1998. That was a record of that period of time and the
result of that tough budget vote that we took in 1993.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, immoral. Immoral is the only word I can
find to describe the Republican budget that is being forced down our
throats this evening.
As we go to war, this Republican package includes exactly zero
dollars towards the war effort. This budget includes exactly zero
dollars to bolster our troops in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
And for our veterans, this Republican budget cuts funding for veterans
disability pensions and veterans health care.
The Disabled American Veterans asked the question: Has Congress no
shame? Unfortunately, as long as Republicans control this institution
and force these types of budgets onto the American people, the answer
is no, this Republican Congress has no shame.
Mr. Chairman, that is why I believe this budget is immoral, and that
is the only word I can find to describe it. Tax cuts for the rich, cuts
to veterans' pensions and health care and nothing for our troops. I say
vote down this immoral Republican budget.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I know it is getting late. It is 10 p.m., but words
like ``immoral'' and not providing money to our troops is just over the
edge. Our troops are going to get all the money they need to do
whatever they have to do to protect themselves and achieve their
objective. There is no one here doubts that issue. Not one Member. To
suggest otherwise, I think particularly tonight, is inappropriate. I do
not think that we need to go there.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
said that States are having to make cuts, and you do not see why it is
not possible that we in this Congress cannot take a 1 percent across-
the-board cut.
I could accept that, but the only problem is where the gentleman did
not cite the difference between the States and us is that they are not
parading around talking about tax cuts in Tennessee, Connecticut,
Michigan, Florida and New Mexico.
Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, I understand there is an objection to
the tax cuts. I understand that debate is going to be one in which we
will disagree. We happen to believe that tax cuts generate economic
activity. We have an honest disagreement on that issue.
I am just saying in this debate tonight when our men and women are
fighting to even suggest for a moment that our troops are not going to
get all of the resources they need is simply going over the edge. I
would just suggest that we both know that we need to provide our men
and women with everything they need, and our job is to make sure it is
never a fair fight, that we always have the advantage, and we have done
that.
I think the gentleman would acknowledge that this side of the aisle
has continually put more money into the defense budget. That is what we
continue to do today. I just would make this point. Our men and women
are going to get whatever they need, and we are going to have a
supplemental that impacts this budget, not next year's budget. They
will get whatever they need to do their job and win this war.
We have disagreements. Our disagreements are we are putting more
money in defense and homeland security. We believe a meaningful tax
cut, one that is noticeable and large, will strengthen the economy and
create jobs; and we believe that a 1 percent cut on nondefense,
nonhomeland security discretionary spending, 1 percent for 1 year will
make sense. What my colleague from South Carolina did not point out is
during the late 1990s, we slowed the growth in spending for 2, almost
3, years, and then allowed it to go up again. We believe that is why
our budget balanced. We are going to have disagreements on that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enthusiastically
support the Spratt substitute amendment on the budget because of its
commitment to child care, education, Medicare and Medicaid, and because
it helps ease the pain of working Americans.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
Republican's proposed budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 and in
support of the Spratt substitute amendment. If passed, the budget
resolution currently before the House would require the Committee on
Education and the Workforce to cut

[[Page H2221]]

mandatory spending programs under its jurisdiction by $269 million for
fiscal year 2004 and $2.675 billion for fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
This is completely unacceptable. Education is the key to success.
The Federal cuts come at a time when States are facing a severe
budget crisis. According to the National Governors' Association, States
face a combined $80 billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2004 in
addition to a $30 billion shortfall for the current fiscal year.
In my State of Texas, they are suffering from at least a $10 billion
shortfall in this 2-year period.
As I see it, all of these cuts to essential educational programs are
being made only to benefit the wealthiest Americans--the top 1%--
through tax cuts. The President and the Republican party insist on
cutting taxes far beyond any reasonable amount at a time when we are at
war with Iraq and will need to occupy Iraq for years to come to
maintain the peace and rebuild the country. They are acting
irresponsibly by failing to include the projected cost of the war and
its aftermath in this current budget resolution. The cost of the war
alone has been estimated at anywhere from $70 billion to $200 billion,
according to the Administration's former economic advisor, Lawrence
Lindsay.
The Republican budget also cuts $28 billion in health care and
disability benefits for military veterans again to pay for tax cuts for
the wealthiest Americans less than 24 hours after sending our forces
into battle. They should be ashamed of themselves. It is unconscionable
for the Republicans to be cutting taxes and reducing social services
programs at a time when the United States has a large and growing
deficit, our states are in crises, and we are at war with Iraq. History
will not be kind when it judges the Republicans' actions.
There is a far better alternative budget. Congressman Spratt's
Democratic substitute offers real economic stimulus and job creation.
It proposes responsible tax policy by continuing the implementation of
middle-income tax cuts, such as the increased child tax credit, and by
freezing tax cuts for the top two income tax brackets. The Spratt
substitute meets our nation's domestic needs by providing over $200
billion more in domestic investments than the Republican budget. It
fully funds priority investments such as No Child Left Behind, IDEA,
veteran's benefits, children's services, public health, transportation,
environmental programs and agricultural programs. This alternative also
invests in health care and a strong prescription drug plan by providing
at least $20 billion to cover the uninsured and at least $528 billion
for a prescription drug program under Medicare, while allowing senior
citizens to stay with their current doctors. Finally, the Spratt
alternative budget invests in Homeland Security and defense funding by
increasing resources for Homeland Defense and by giving $20 billion
more to First Responders than they would receive under the Republican
Budget. In short, the Spratt Budget provides for America's needs, the
needs of our people and strengthens our economy. It is a sound,
reasonable budget blueprint, and we should support it.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican's proposed budget resolution is
inherently flawed. It hurts the education system in the United States.
It harms children's programs. It damages small businesses, which are
the strength of the U.S. economy, and it insults our veterans and our
troops fighting in Iraq. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the
Spratt substitute and oppose the irresponsible, illogical, and ill-
advised Republican budget resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays) mentioned not tonight, we do not walk the talk about what
is happening to our veterans and military tonight. What better time to
pull the covers off and show exactly what this Republican Party is
doing for our veterans.

{time} 2215

How in the name of any degree of decency and respect can we, on a day
that will certainly live in infamy in the hearts of veterans, on a day
and a time that we are sending our men and women into battle, what
reward do we want to give our veterans who had to remember a day in
infamy 60 years ago? What do we want to give them? A $17 billion cut
for veterans.
I represent the State of Georgia. I say to my friends in the
Republican Party, and I want you to know that every weekend I go home
that my office is lined with veterans with tears in their eyes, saying,
how could they be so mean? Every year in campaigns my Republican
friends run around the country, and they talk about conservative
compassion. This is not conservative compassion. This is downright
conservative meanness. These veterans do not appreciate it. This is why
I say, let us support the Democratic budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, as a Democrat who voted for the 2001 Bush
tax cut, I am here tonight to say that I would never support a vote for
this Republican budget proposal. The Republican budget completely
abandons the goal of a balanced budget. It embraces deficits and debt.
It slashes critical programs for our working families, and it is
fiscally irresponsible. The Republican budget would mean a cut of
hundreds of millions of dollars from Nevada's hospitals and health care
providers due to cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Nevada already has a
health care crisis. We cannot afford these cuts in medical care for our
elderly and our poor.
The Republican budget eliminates after-school programs for over 2,900
children in Nevada. Southern Nevada has one of the highest dropout
rates in the country. Abandoning these kids who are struggling to stay
in school would be a disaster. The Republican budget cuts almost 8
percent from highway funding. In Nevada, the fastest-growing State in
the country, this translates into a $16 million cut and represents a
loss of more than 760 construction jobs for Nevada.
At a time that our Nation is going to war, the Republican budget cuts
$28 million from the veterans budget. I urge all of my colleagues to
support the Spratt proposal and not the Republican budget debacle.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, there are words we should remember. There
are quotes worth quoting again. Here is one:
``If we are to prevail in the long run, we must expand the long-run
strength of our economy. We must move along the path to a higher rate
of growth and full employment.
``For this would mean tens of billions of dollars more for each year
in production, profits, wages and public revenues. It would mean an end
to the persistent slack which has kept our unemployment at or above 5
percent for 61 of the past 62 months.''
``To achieve these greater gains, one step, above all, is essential,
the enactment this year of a substantial reduction and revision in
Federal income taxes.
``For it is increasingly clear, to those in government, business and
labor who are responsible for our economy's success, that our obsolete
tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits
and employment. Designed to check inflation in early years, it now
checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It
distorts the use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions,
depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget deficits.''
``This net reduction in tax liabilities will increase the purchasing
power of American families and business enterprises in every tax
bracket, with the greatest increase going to our low-income consumers.
It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-taking on which
our free system depends, induce more investment, production and
capacity use, help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year,
and reinforce the American principle of additional reward for
additional effort.''
Mr. Chairman, there are Democrats that we should quote, there are
Democratic words that we should remember, and those that I have just
quoted came from the Democratic President of the United States, John
Fitzgerald Kennedy, in his State of the Union message in 1963.
There is a contemporary Democrat who offers to his party also very
good advice. It, of course, is Democrat Bill Richardson from the State
of New Mexico, who says that ``reducing taxes,'' and this year he is
talking about, this is not in 1963, he is talking about 2003,
``reducing taxes puts us on the road to economic growth.'' His plan
reduces New Mexico's income tax by 40 percent, from the current 8.2
percent to 4.9 percent. He agrees that his plan sounds

[[Page H2222]]

sort of like the Bush tax-cutting agenda.
All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is this. There was a time when the
Democratic Party could be counted on to do the right thing for the
government, to do the right thing regardless of whether or not you
could make a class envy debate out of this thing. They knew it was the
right thing to do. It was the right thing to do when the President of
the United States said so in 1963, it is the right thing to do today
when the Democratic Governor of New Mexico says to do it, and I
encourage this body to do it by striking down this substitute and
supporting the underlying amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my good friend the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) that Governor Richardson in New Mexico, we
applaud him for what he has done.
There are many on this side who believe that tax cuts should be a
viable part of any stimulus plan. The only problem is the tax cut that
you propose we do not believe will actually stimulate very much, nor
will it help us to achieve the balanced budgets that my friend the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) claims he wants, and I believe
that he actually wants, even though he was a bit condescending when he
told me to shut up a few seconds ago.
I will say this to my friend, Bill Richardson and other Governors
across this Nation, Bill Richardson was here a few days ago along with
Governor Bush and another Governor, talking about Medicaid dollars and
complaining to this Congress that the cuts we are imposing on his
hospitals in his State as well as Governor Bush's State and other
States are far too onerous.
All we ask on this side is that we be honest about the moment we
face. Many of us on this side have rallied behind this President and
our Commander in Chief in this effort against Iraq and this war on
terrorism. I resent my friend the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham), for whom I have great affection, for some of the words. I
understand the passion sometimes, it happens to me, it gets to us and
perhaps allows our words to get away from us. I am sure he did not mean
some of the personal things he said this evening.
Our budget, I believe, we believe, is better for the country than
yours. It is about priorities. Next election cycle we will see who is
right, but I can tell this to the gentleman from Connecticut, I want to
win this war, I want to see this economy grow, and I can assure you
that everyone on this side of the aisle wants that as well. We just
think our budget is better.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, here is the dilemma we are faced with. If this budget
passes and becomes real, which I doubt, it will be devastating to our
children and their education, to our seniors and their security, and to
some of the most worthy citizens we know, sick and disabled veterans.
On the other hand, if it passes and does not become real, if those cuts
are not actually made, then it will devastate the bottom line of our
budget.
Those of us who have been here a long time can tell you how
intractable deep deficits can become. For 15 years we struggled to get
ourselves in surplus, and in 2 years we have blown it. That is why we
are out here intensely tonight fighting. Important principles are at
stake.
I have to say to my colleague and wonderful friend, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), when I first saw this budget on the day
of markup, I said, ``It ain't on the level. I can't take it at face
value.'' The better I understand it, the less credence I give it. I
honestly think it is just a clever device for passing another round of
tax cuts as large as the last, $1.35 trillion, despite the fact that
this time there is no surplus. It goes straight to the bottom line and
increases the deficit.
Here the numbers are displayed on this chart. If you want a choice
between us and them, here it is, Mr. Chairman. Here it is, colleagues.
Our budget every year has a lower and lower deficit until the year 2010
when it is no longer in deficit, it is in surplus. We put the budget
back in surplus. That is our driving purpose. The first parameter we
set for ourselves was we are going to get to balance in a reasonable
period of time, and that date turned out to be 2010.
If you compare the Republican chart, you will see they do not get to
balance until the year 2012, 2 years later, and that depends, Mr.
Chairman, on some stupendous cost-cutting around here. I have been here
20 years. I just do not think that they are going to be able to
accomplish it.
I heard these colloquies over here on the House floor. The gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), one of the ablest Members of this House,
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, he had a colloquy that,
in effect, said, you don't expect me really to get $40 billion out of
government retirement pensions, do you? The answer was basically, no,
you've got other mandatory programs. You can reform procurement, for
example, and save $40 billion.
Give me a break. That is not going to happen. This is a serious,
serious effort and exercise, because if we are wrong here, we will live
with the consequences for a long, long time.
We have before us a real choice to this budget which we have brought
to the House floor from the House Budget Committee. We have got a
choice that is a far better choice, the Democratic substitute. It is a
fiscally sound choice because our budget balances in 2010; theirs
balances in 2012. Our budget racks up less debt during that 10-year
time frame, $913 billion less debt, and, listen to this, $1.647
trillion less debt than the President's budget.
Our budget is fair and sensible. The Democratic budget weighs
priorities. The Republican budget wreaks havoc. Indeed, much of our
budget is devoted to restoring the damage the Republican budget does.
The Republican budget cuts education and training by $60 billion. It
flat-funds Leave No Child Behind, even though the authorizing act calls
for $9 billion next year. We restore that cut and add to the education
function.
The Republican resolution wipes out Justice Department programs like
community policing. We can all attest to its effectiveness. It drops
and cuts out Byrne grants. It drops level funding for these Justice
Department programs by $35 billion. Do you know who you are cutting
when you are doing that? The famous first responders. These people that
we talk about, but do so little for, they are the victims. We do not
stand for that in our budget. We restore those programs because we
think this is the first line of homeland defense, and we put $24
billion more in our budget than they do for homeland security.
We have heard it charged on the floor today that our budget increases
spending. Let me just lay that argument to rest once and for all with a
chart that is taken straight from the numbers in our budget. As you can
see, this year we are spending about 20.4 percent total spending of
GDP. Following the path laid down by our budget, that will decline to
19.1 percent of GDP in 2013. In the years 2004 through 2013, the 10-
year time frame of this budget, our spending will grow by 4.6 percent
over that 10-year period of time. That will be the annual rate of
growth. That is less than the GDP nominal growth rate.
Let me finally say that our bill also has in it something that is
critically important. We have got a weak, wobbly economy. We have got
in our bill the stimulus package, which we think is an excellent
package. It was offered by us on January 6 of this year. We say, let us
enact it. Let us help those who are unemployed, let us give this
economy a kick, let us give those who are likely to spend it a rebate
straight to their pockets. It will be spent on the economy. Let us give
small businesses extra expensing. Let us help large businesses by
saying, if you will do something in 2003, we will give you a 50 percent
depreciation.
It is dramatic, it is bold, and when you compare it by any of the
established economic models, we get two to three times the results in
GDP growth and job creation that the Republicans get for spending six
times as much money in their jobs and growth package.
We have a real choice, a stark choice today, and far better the
choice is our Democratic substitute. Vote for the

[[Page H2223]]

Spratt substitute. Vote for the Democratic substitute. It is the best
choice by far.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Democrat budget. I find it
fascinating that we have so much angst about the deficit on this side
of the aisle. I have a lot of angst about the deficit. I do not want to
leave our children a legacy of debt. I have a 1-year-old. I want to
leave them a legacy of freedom and opportunity. But, Mr. Chairman, the
tax relief in the Republican package accounts for less than 5 percent
of this budget.

{time} 2230

If there is so much angst over the deficit, why does the Democrat
budget not focus on 95 percent of the problem, which is spending? Our
budget increases spending, increases it by 3 percent. How much is
enough? Over 5 years we have increased the VA, HUD, and independent
agencies by 35.7 percent, Transportation by almost 80 percent, HHS by
96 percent. If every Government program was so great for the American
people, why do we not simply double these budgets? Why do we not triple
these budgets? Why do we not quadruple the budgets? Why do we not tell
the American people to quit sending us State, local, and Federal taxes
of 40 percent? Why do they not just send it all to us?
The point we are making is that good things can be done perhaps
outside of this Government. I mean, the Democrats talk and accuse us of
cutting programs. It is their budget that cuts education programs. It
is their budget that cuts housing programs because in our budget we
help American families pay for their programs. Our budget is going to
allow 46 million married couples to keep over $1,700 more of what they
earn. That is enough to pay two mortgage payments. That is a housing
program and the Democrat budget cuts it.
Under our budget, 34 million families with children would keep an
additional $1,500, enough to purchase a personal computer for their
children. That is an education program and the Democrat budget cuts it.
Six million single mothers would keep $541. That is enough to purchase
a month of daycare. That is a childcare program. And the Democrat
budget cuts it.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot tax our way into prosperity, spend our way
into prosperity, or sue our way into prosperity; and we need to reject
this Democrat budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic
leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his distinguished leadership in putting together the
Spratt proposal this evening.
I rise in strong support of the Spratt budget resolution and in
opposition to the Republican budget on the floor tonight. I want to
congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his
great leadership. I also want to commend the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Owens) for his leadership on the Congressional Black Caucus budget
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for his leadership on the
Blue Dog budget. All three of these Democratic budgets are far superior
to the Republican proposal.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that our Federal budget should be a
statement of our national values. We should allocate our resources to
those proposals that are important to us.
Let me ask my colleagues, is it a statement of your values to cut
funding in the education of our children in order to give a tax cut to
the wealthiest in America? I did not think so. America's children
deserve better.
Is it a statement of your values to give a meager drug prescription
benefit and cut nursing home care to America's seniors while giving the
most of the tax breaks to those who need it least? I did not think so
either. America's seniors deserve better.
Is it a statement of your values to cut funding for America's
disabled veterans and not include one penny for a war budget as we send
our young men and women into harm's way? America's veterans and
servicemen and women deserve better.
Is it a statement of your values to underfund Homeland Security while
we are on high alert? The American people deserve better.
The Republican budget is clearly not a statement of our national
values. It explodes the deficit, fails to create jobs, and fails to
invest in the education and health care initiatives that this country
needs for long-term economic growth.
I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his
masterful leadership in developing a Democratic budget that creates
jobs, in fact, 1 million new jobs this year. The Spratt proposal
balances the budget, sparks economic growth, funds the priorities of
working families, education for their children, prescription drugs for
their parents and grandparents, health care for our veterans, and
resources for the police and firefighters who protect our communities.
This Democratic budget invests in our children. The Republican budget
indebts them. This Democratic budget gives the American people the
responsible budget they deserve. The Republican budget is reckless and
irresponsible. On every measure important to working families, the
Democratic budget is better.
We will fight this unconscionable Republican budget at every
opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Spratt.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is getting late. I know we are going to have a 2-hour dialogue of
strong support for our men and women in battle. I would like to
conclude by making a number of points, but not using all my time.
First, there is really no one I respect more on either side of the
aisle than the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I
appreciate the graciousness in which he does his business and the
conviction with which he expresses it and the work that he and his
staff and his members do.
My comments are meant to just explain differences and not to describe
character; but when we were debating this bill last week, we looked at
amendments to the budget that only increase spending. We did not see
any Democratic amendment that cuts spending. Admittedly, they reduce
the tax cuts and therefore added more taxes than we would have. That is
true. But there was $1 trillion of more spending, and I would submit
that during the 20 years that my colleague talks about serving in this
Congress, the only time he ever saw Congress balance the budget was
under a Republican Congress. He never saw it happen under a Democratic
Congress. He never saw a debt paid back under a Democratic Congress. So
I understand that we have clearly been very proud of the fact that we
on the Republican side of the aisle, working with Democrats, balanced
the budget and started to pay down debt and now we have gone in a
different direction.
It does not surprise me, though. The economy has slowed down. We had
a horrific attack on September 11, 2001, that I think most people know
had an impact on the budget. Ten percent of our gross domestic product
came to a standstill with the airline industry and tourism. So we all
understand that. We just have a difference in how we generate economic
activity because both sides recognize that we ultimately balance the
budget by growing this economy and getting more revenue. That is what
we know happened. And the difference is a 1 percent reduction in
mandatory and discretionary nondefense, nonhomeland security, non-
Social Security, non-Medicare that we think is something that grown men
and women can do. And when my colleagues on that side of the aisle
ascribe a cut in a particular part of the budget, what they had to do
was they had to assume that we were going to cut more than 1 percent
and where we were going to make that cut was in the particular area
they wanted.
The disadvantage we have is that we decided to allow the
appropriators to make that decision, unlike what we did in the
Committee on the Budget I was on a few years ago in 1996 and 1997 where
we specified those cuts, we said the appropriators can make those
decisions, and I am absolutely certain that in most instances described
on the other side of the aisle, those cuts would not be made there.
That is what I believe because we are talking about a 1

[[Page H2224]]

percent cut in 1 year and then we allow the budget to grow the next
year and the next year and the next year and the next year. Nine years
we allow it to grow, but our logic is make the reductions this year
because then we see benefit in all the years that follow.
Maybe it is hard here, but when I was in the Statehouse and on the
Committee on Appropriations for 13 years, we sometimes had to reduce
the budget by 5 percent or more; and what we did is we sat down with
the department heads and said, This is what we have got to do, where
would you like the cuts to be? We met with our version of GAO and said,
Where do you think it should be? Our version of the Inspector Generals,
and we put it all together, and we came down with where we thought the
cuts should be. A 1 percent reduction 1 year is what we are asking for.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would just say we do want to protect
America. We do want to increase the defense budget and homeland
security, and we do. We do want to strengthen the economy and create
jobs. We do it by a tax cut. On the other side of the aisle, you do it
by spending increases and a much smaller tax cut, and we ultimately
want to balance the budget and now your budget will balance 2 years
sooner under a static model. We believe under a dynamic model when we
restrain spending and we have tax cuts, we will see it balance sooner.
We saw that happen in 1990. We did not get credit in 1990 when we had
our 7-year plan to balance the budget. The CBO would not give us
credit, but we balanced it in 3 years, 4 years sooner than we thought.
You may not agree with what I have said, but that is the reality as
we see it, and that is the differences we have, and they are honest
disagreements; but the one thing we do not have a disagreement on, and
that is what I was trying to explain to my colleague. Our men and women
are going to get whatever they need to win whatever war they are
fighting and to make sure it is never a fair battle. On that
Republicans and Democrats are totally and completely united. Totally
and completely.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the budget
proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt. The
Republican majority of the House Budget Committee approved a federal
budget reducing funding for veterans' health care and benefit programs
by nearly $25 billion. The actual spending impact of these cuts would
be even greater.
Over a ten-year period the GOP is proposing a cut of almost $9
billion in veterans' health care--an average of more than $900 million
less than the President has proposed per year. For other veterans'
benefits, including cash payments to veterans disabled by military
service, the Republican budget calls for a $15 billion cut in spending
from current levels during the next ten years.
In sharp contrast to the Republican's proposal, the Committee on
Veterans Affairs, on a bipartisan basis, recommended adding $3 billion
to the President's budget next year for veteran discretionary programs
including medical care and research, construction, and programs that
fund the administrative costs of other important benefits such as
compensation, pension, and education programs. A group of Veterans
Service Organizations who support the Independent Budget also recommend
an increase over the President's budget of almost that much.
The Republicans also spurned other efforts to increase funding for
the nation's veterans. An amendment in the Budget Committee offered by
Darlene Hooley to add $1 billion for veterans' health care and restore
cuts in mandatory programs was voted down on a largely party-line vote.
Passing the Republican's budget will mean serious problems for
veterans' health care. Among them, Congress will have to seriously
consider the new copayments and enrollment fees proposed by the Bush
Administration in order to keep the system operating in the next fiscal
year. Some of these proposals include retaining the ineligibility for
new Priority 8 veterans for VA health care services indefinitely,
requiring Priority 7 and 8 veterans to have an annual enrollment fee in
addition to increased copayments for pharmaceutical drugs and primary
care and providing only veterans with highly rated service-connected
disabilities (more than 70 percent) VA Nursing Home care.
In addition, passage of the Republican's budget would mean there
would be no additional funds available to implement the Homeless
Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act to work toward the goal of
elimination chronic homelessness in a decade. It would also mean that
the current exercise Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services
(CARES) that VA is undertaking to assess the best use of its physical
infrastructure will become a ``de facto'' closure commission with no
ability to respond to veterans' needs for primary care, long-term care,
and mental health projected by its own models. There would be little
money leftover for any of the system's desperately needed construction
projects.
As serious as the problems for health care would be, the implications
of the scheduled cuts for veterans' benefits would be even worse. The
Administration's Budget for 2004 makes no provision for additional
service-connected disability benefits resulting from the present war
with Iraq. As we know from the last war in the Persian Gulf, war
results in adverse health effects and justifiable claims for service
connected disability compensation. It does acknowledge the expected
increase in veteran's claims and an expected worsening of the
disabilities of some service-connected veterans. Under these
circumstances, cuts in mandatory spending can only be made by cutting
benefits to veterans with service-connected disabilities.
Ninety percent of the mandatory spending the Budget Committee
proposes to cut is from cash payments to service disabled veterans,
low-income wartime veterans and their survivors. I do not believe that
as our young men and women are fighting in Iraq and defending freedom
in other parts of the world, we should pass a budget which will not
fully compensate them for any disabilities they acquire during, or as a
result of, that service.
Other programs funded with mandatory spending are the Montgomery G.I.
Bill education benefits, vocational rehabilitation and independent
living programs for service-disabled veterans, subsidies for VA home
loans and insurance for service-disabled veterans and funds to provide
headstones, markers and flags for decreased veterans.
As our Nation enters a war certain to result in disability and death
for young Americans, the Budget Committee's proposed requires the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs to make permanent cuts in the benefits
paid to those disabled by virtue of their service to our Nation. These
cuts must be made, so that our government can afford to provide a tax
cut which will benefit only the wealthiest Americans, many of whom have
never served in the military.
In contrast, Mr. Spratt's amendment would restore the cut for
benefits and health care and add $200 million to the VA health care
budget.
I ask you now, who deserves to receive the benefits of the national
treasury--America's disabled veterans or America's millionaires? I urge
my colleagues to vote for the Spratt amendment.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, at a time when our federal budget faces
huge deficits and we are engaged in a large military campaign halfway
around the globe, now is not the time to slash taxes. Never in the
history of our country have we fought a major war and cut taxes at the
same time. Yet that is exactly what the Republican budget resolution
does. These serious times demand that we act prudently, and that means
we must pass a budget that meets our financial obligations.
The Republican budget makes permanent the $1.35 trillion tax cut
passed in 2001, at a cost of $523 billion. It also implements the $694
billion ``Growth'' bill, the centerpiece of which is the elimination of
the dividend tax. This plan will fail to spark an economic turnaround
because it applies to only 25% of the population and less than 5% of
the benefits take place this year when the economy needs it the most.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, a similar
tax cut proposed by the Administration would add $2.2 trillion in
deficits over the next 5 years.
Because the first priority of the Republican budget is to cut taxes,
programs dedicated to health care, education, and the environment
suffer drastic cuts. To make room for tax cuts, at least $265 billion
over ten years is slashed from programs like veterans' benefits, loans
for college students, school lunch programs, and Medicaid.
Most concerning is that we really don't know how much the military
operations and our occupation of Iraq will cost, but we do know that
the U.S. alone will carry the tremendous burden of that responsibility.
Estimates vary widely, and the lowest, most optimistic figure is $80
billion. With that enormous figure added to this year's deficit of $304
billion, common sense dictates that we refrain from additional tax cuts
and return fiscal sanity to the budget process.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic budget alternative,
which offers a sound, practical way to stimulate economic activity
while paying down the debt and saving critical social programs. The
Democratic proposal includes $136 billion in tax cuts and targeted
investments this year. At less than one-sixth the cost of the
Republican ``Growth'' bill, the plan allows the budget to recover while
giving the

[[Page H2225]]

economy the immediate boost it so desperately needs.
The Democratic alternative ensures that critical social services will
continue to be provided at their current levels by restoring the cuts
made in the Republican Resolution. It also provides $528 billion in new
money for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, while the Republican
proposal only offers $128 billion. The Democratic measure allocates $34
billion more for homeland security and $60 billion more for education
over the next ten years, adds $10 billion more to help working families
with child care over five years, and protects funding for Low Income
Heating Energy Assistance Program, Women Infants and Children
Nutrition, housing programs and other important initiatives.
If we pass another round of irresponsibly large tax cuts, government
deficits will spiral out of control, especially as war increases our
overall spending. We cannot saddle our children and grandchildren with
this debt--we must decide now to adhere to the principals of fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we take up this budget debate at a
moment of great national challenge. The men and women of our armed
forces have begun military action in Iraq. We wish them a swift and
successful end to hostilities with a minimum loss of life on all sides.
At this moment, when they are demonstrating such courage and sacrifice,
we here at home must make responsible decisions about the kind of
America we want for them and our children. The decisions we make
tonight will affect the well being of our troops and all Americans for
years to come. We must make important decisions about the future
economic health of our nation and what investments we decide to make
for the common good.
We need to adopt an economic plan that will put America back to work
and a budget that reflects the priorities of the American people. Just
as each family must make tough decisions about their own household
budgets, so must we make tough decisions for our entire American
family. How we decide to invest our collective resources should tell us
a lot about what we care about as a people and who we are. The budgets
and economic plans we adopt should reflect the values and priorities of
the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the people in my district.
I think I understand their priorities. And I believe that what they
care about is what every American cares about. They want a country
where every child has the opportunity to get a great start in life with
a first rate education. They want a country where every American has
access to quality health care. They want an America where there is a
job for every individual ready to roll up their sleeves and go to work.
And they want to know that their government is taking all reasonable
steps to protect our homeland and be prepared to respond to national
emergencies. These are the simple things we want for our families, our
neighbors and our fellow Americans.
We are a great nation. We can do these things. Unfortunately, the
Republican budget before us does not begin to meet the needs and
priorities of our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, just a short time ago I had the privilege of sitting in
this chamber when the President gave his State of the Union address. At
the outset of his speech, he made the following statement: ``We will
not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to
other Congresses, to other Presidents and other generations.''
Unfortunately, neither the budget submitted by the President nor the
Republican Budget Committee proposal before us today passes that test.
In fact the budget before us today does exactly what the President says
he does not want to do. It does ignore our problems and, if we don't
fix those problems we will be simply passing the buck to future
Congresses, future Presidents, and future generations.
Look at education. Last year, with great fanfare, the President
signed the Leave No Child Behind bill at the White House. Yet the ink
was barely dry before the administration submitted a budget that fell
well short of the promised funding. Well, when you leave the funding
behind, you leave millions of children behind with nothing but broken
promises. And the Republican proposal falls $9 billion short--almost 25
percent--of the funds authorized. That is a terrible message to send to
our school children and teachers.
Look at health care. The Republican budget contains no meaningful
proposal to address the problem of the 41 million Americans who have no
health insurance. Apparently the Republican budget proposes to leave
this problem to future Congresses and generations.
How about domestic security? The Republican's proposed budget ignores
many of the needs outlined by the agency heads at the U.S. Customs
Service, the Coast Guard, the Department of Energy and elsewhere. They
have said they need far more resources to meet the threat than what is
proposed in the Republican budget.
So what have the House Republicans proposed? What is their top
domestic priority? Another huge tax cut that overwhelmingly benefits
the super wealthy. Like the President, the House Republicans have
decided that the most pressing domestic problem--the one issue that
cannot wait--is that the super wealthy are paying too much in taxes.
That comes on the heels of the $1.4 trillion tax cut from 2001 that
disproportionately benefits the very wealthy.
And what will be the result of the Republican tax cut plan directed
mostly to the wealthy? Even administration officials have conceded that
it will do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy right now. The
real result will be rivers of red ink and rising interest rates. The
Republican plan would result in a $324 billion deficit this year and
lead to one of the sharpest reversals in America's fiscal fortunes in
history. And that doesn't even include one penny of the cost of the
ongoing war with Iraq and its aftermath. The President's policies would
take us from a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years to a
projected $2.1 trillion deficit. The Republican Budget Committee
proposal masks these long-term deficits by calling for huge and
unrealistic cuts. The actual result of their tax cut proposals will be
exploding deficits.
Who's going to pick up the tab for this growing mountain of debt? The
American people of course. It's simple. There are only two ways to deal
with it in the long run. Either we substantially raise taxes on the
next generation or we dramatically cut the areas of largest
expenditure--Social Security and Medicare. Already, funds from the
Social Security trust fund are going to pay for the President's last
round of tax cuts. Remember that ``lock box?'' Well, the lock has been
picked and the raid is on. The Republican budget plan makes the problem
even worse. It is a guided missile aimed at the heart of Social
Security. And its not just money in the trust fund that will be lost;
we will also lose the trust of the American people.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned with the reckless economic
course proposed in the Republican budget. It does exactly what the
President said in his State of the Union that he does not want to do--
it ignores our very real current needs, and passes on the burdens of
huge tax cuts to Social Security, Medicare and future Congresses and
generations. I believe the Republican budget plan is out of touch with
the true hopes and aspirations of the American people.
We have an obligation to confront our needs squarely now. We need to
talk straight to the American people. The Democratic budget
alternatives we are debating tonight all reflect the values and
priorities of the American people better than the Republican plan. They
correct the serious defects in the proposed Republican budget. All of
them provide a great national investment in education, health care,
homeland security, and prescription drug coverage for seniors. And they
all do so without running up the huge deficits and debt contained in
the Republican plan.
One shortcoming in the Democratic plans, however, is that--although
they all provide a greater investment in our children's education than
the Republican proposal, none of them reach the full level of funding
promised in the Leave No Child Behind legislation. Full funding for
Leave No Child Behind, IDEA and the other educational commitments we
have made must be a top priority. I will continue to press for a budget
that keeps all the promises we have made America's children.
While I am disappointed that the Democratic alternatives do not
provide for full funding of these educational commitments, they come
far closer than the Republican proposal. They also meet many other
needs that are neglected in the Republican budget. I hope this Congress
will adopt an economic plan and a budget that reflects the true
priorities of the American people and does not pass the buck to future
generations.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the Democratic
budget and I reject the Republican budget.
The Democratic Budget invests in education and training. Our budget
provides $3.2 billion more for education and training than the GOP
budget in FY 2004 alone. Over the next 10 years the Democratic budget
provides $44 billion more than the GOP budget. These budget increases
mean increased funding for No Child Left Behind programs which reduce
class sizes and provide advanced training for teachers.
The Democratic Budget also invests more in discretionary health care
programs than the GOP Budget. The Democratic budget provides $2.9
billion more for discretionary health care in FY 2004, and $27.8
billion more over the next 10 years than the Republican Budget.
Programs such as health professions training, rural health programs,
Ryan White AIDS activities, and Healthy Start will be the direct
beneficiaries of the Democratic Budget proposal.
The Democratic Budget is also preferable to the GOP Budget in
Veterans' Health Care. The Democratic Budget provides $23

[[Page H2226]]

billion more than the GOP budget over the next 10 years for Veterans'
programs. It provides $17 billion more for discretionary veterans'
programs. It provides $15 billion more for mandatory veterans'
programs--where the GOP budget cuts $15 billion from mandatory
veterans' programs.
Finally, the Democrats budget call for spending $34 billion more than
the GOP budget on Homeland Security over the next 11 years. One the
other hand, the GOP budget freezes homeland security funding at the
2003 level. The Democratic budget, for example, would ensure that $3.5
billion in desperately-needed new money would be available for police
officer, firefighters and emergency medical personnel. The GOP budget
does not.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 236, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 81]

AYES--192

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--236

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Buyer
Gephardt
Hyde
Lipinski
Thornberry
Udall (CO)

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 2305

Mr. BURGESS and Mr. SOUDER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________