[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 60 (Saturday, April 12, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E768-E769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE

                              of delaware

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 10, 2003

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the union had under consideration the bill Concurrent 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional 
     budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2004 
     and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
     years 2003 and 2005 through 2013:

  Mr. CASTLE.  Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the conference report on the 
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution. I am saddened that I must oppose 
the conference report, because I believe passage of a budget resolution 
is very important. A budget resolution is essential to allow the House 
and Senate set the overall limits for spending and taxes that guide all 
other legislation for the rest of the year. This final conference 
report is an improvement over the House budget resolution, but still 
falls short of a balanced plan for fiscal responsibility at a time when 
we are facing the tremendous challenges of international terrorism, war 
and reconstruction in Iraq, domestic needs here at home and the return 
of large federal budget deficits which could hinder future economic 
growth.
  This conference report is an improvement over the House budget 
resolution because it provides for limited but fair funding for key 
programs like education, Medicaid, Medicare, and veterans, while 
meeting the essential needs of national defense and homeland security. 
I am pleased that the budget negotiators listened to those of us who 
said that the reductions in the original House budget resolution were 
not sustainable and restored funding for key areas like education, 
health care and veterans. I appreciate Chairman Nussle's responsiveness 
to these concerns. The spending limits for domestic discretionary 
programs will be tight, but probably manageable at a time when spending 
must be restrained.
  However, this resolution does not apply the same restraint to tax 
cuts. It calls for a total of $1.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next 
ten years, and more important, it sets up an expedited process to 
assure passage of up to $550 billion in tax cuts. It is simply not 
sound policy to go forward with tax cuts of this size at a

[[Page E769]]

time when we are facing the growing and, as yet, unknown total costs of 
completing the war against Iraq, fighting terrorism, protecting the 
homeland, while meeting essential needs like health care for our 
seniors and education for our young people. The Federal Government's 
role in addressing these issues is especially important at this time 
because state governments, including my state of Delaware, are 
experiencing severe budget problems forcing them to reduce funding for 
virtually every program at the state level.
  The fact of the matter is that deficits do matter. Due in part to the 
economic slowdown and the costs of the war on terrorism, we are now 
facing federal deficits over the next ten years that could approach 
$4.2 trillion. Adding debt at these levels can hurt the economy. In 
addition, they will come at a time when we will begin to face 
tremendous demands to fund the retirement of the Baby Boom generation 
and the growing health care needs of an aging population. If the tax 
cuts called for in this budget resolution are ultimately approved, we 
are really rolling the dice on whether they will strengthen the economy 
significantly or add to the growing deficit challenges we face.
  I must also oppose this resolution based on the poor process that has 
brought us to this point. We are voting on this budget in the middle of 
the night because a compromise on a more realistic tax cut level could 
not be reached and the decision was made to try to force this through. 
Instead of attempting to find consensus on a more limited level of tax 
cuts of $350 billion, which would provide more rapid tax relief for 
families and small businesses, this resolution not only expresses 
support for a total package of $1.2 trillion in tax cuts, it attempts 
to get around the fact that the Senate is on record for limiting the 
tax cut to $350 billion. This resolution creates an unprecedented 
loophole in the budget process to protect up to $550 billion in tax 
cuts through an expedited Senate vote. Despite the fact that budget 
resolutions are supposed to establish one set of rules for considering 
tax legislation. This resolution makes it possible for a second, higher 
tax cut bill to get a protected vote in the Senate.

  This is not a time when Congress should be attempting to force 
through the largest tax cut possible regardless of its economic 
effectiveness when we face the costs of war, serious challenges at home 
and the return of long-term budget deficits.
  My constituents tell me that it does not make sense to rush forward 
with tax cuts of this size before we have won the war with Iraq, 
understand its true cost, and evaluate the recovery of the economy and 
what is needed to help working Americans.
  A better solution would have been to seek agreement on a more 
affordable tax relief package that would help the economy now; allow us 
to pay for our national security needs abroad and at home; and provide 
limited, but fair funding for key needs like education and health care, 
all within a realistic long-term plan to balance the federal budget.
  Unfortunately, because of the decision to push for maximum tax cuts 
over the reservations of Members of both parties, this resolution does 
not meet the overall test of fiscal responsibility and common sense. 
This budget plan is seriously flawed and I must oppose it. When it 
comes time to pass the actual tax and spending legislation to implement 
this budget plan, I hope more reason and fairness are applied and we 
take action that helps the American people now without mortgaging their 
future.

                          ____________________