Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 38 (Wednesday, March 24, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 24, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1443-H1451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Tuesday, March 23, 2004 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
further consideration of the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 393.

{time} 1820

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 393) establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year
2005 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years
2004 and 2006 through 2009, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
following time remained for general debate confined to the
congressional budget: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) had 53\1/2\
minutes remaining, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) had
57\1/2\ minutes remaining.
In addition, 1 hour remains on the subject of economic goals and
policies, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood)
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the chairman for the time
and commend him on the job that he has done on the budget process. It
is very difficult to please 435 people and nobody is ever happy in the
end. It was not exactly like they thought it would be. So I think the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has done yeoman's work on this.
Mr. Chairman, I rise on the floor today to strongly urge my
colleagues to consider the path of fiscal responsibility and debt
reduction at this critical juncture for our Nation. I rise to offer my
support for the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution to get this Congress
and our Nation on the right path.
Mr. Chairman, we are all too painfully aware of the tragic events of
September 11, 2001, and our Nation's and the free world's war on
terrorism that has ensued. It has been a war that the American people
did not ask for. It has been a challenge to the people of this country,
the greatest and most free nation on Earth. But the costs, Mr.
Chairman, the costs have been great in virtually every single way.
On the fiscal side of the ledger, the cost that this Nation has
incurred could never have been foreseen. This body has agreed and
enacted, rightfully so in my opinion, to pay that price and fight this
war.
But, Mr. Chairman, the time to address the growing debt is also at
hand,

[[Page H1444]]

and this resolution, the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution, gets us on
that path of fiscal responsibility and beginning to pay down our debt
without compromising our effort in the war on terrorism or any other of
our Nation's critical priorities, without raising the taxes of
hardworking Americans.
The numbers tell the story. Under this budget, the deficit falls to
$377 billion in the 2005 fiscal year and it is cut in half in 4 years.
Mr. Chairman, the hardworking folks I represent in northeast Georgia
have to make a tough decision around their kitchen tables every day to
live within their fiscal means. It is time this Congress followed the
lead of Georgians and all Americans, hardworking taxpayers, in getting
our financial house in order. But, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely not
time and it never will be time to saddle those same taxpayers in
Georgia and all over this great Nation with higher Federal taxes in the
name of government-knows-best budgeting.
Mr. Chairman, as the folks in Georgia also know, we can slap some
lipstick on a hog and dress it up, but at the end of the day it is
still a hog. And any budget proposal that sticks it to the working man
through higher taxes, funds government pet projects, and pretends to be
something that it is not, well, that certainly smells a little bit like
a hog to me.
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, get this Congress and
America on the path of fiscal responsibility. Reject the notion that
raising taxes is the answer to everything and vote in favor of this
budget resolution.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous
consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks against the Republican budget because it cuts funding
for Violence Against Women programs and in 10 years has cut Family
Violence programs 10 percent.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do not
intend to object, but I hope that if speeches are going to be made
during the time of a unanimous consent request, that that time be taken
out of the opposition's time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to address that issue.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget
because it cuts women's education programs.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget
because it cuts funding for women's business centers, among many other
essential and effective programs.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Solis).
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because
it cuts funds for Violence Against Women by $22 million, which is a 5.7
percentage cut below the 2004 budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms.
McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican
budget because it cuts women's education acts and programs.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Democratic budget
substitute and in opposition to the Republican plan which fails to
address the needs and fiscal challenges America faces today. Instead of
creating jobs, it creates record deficits. It shortchanges education,
healthcare, veterans and does little to aid the sagging economy.
Further, it makes drastic cuts to programs that provide educational and
business opportunities to women across the country.
This budget eliminates Women's Educational Equity Act Programs, which
fund activities promoting educational equity for girls and women. Over
10 percent of young women drop out of high school, yet the President's
budget eliminates funding for dropout prevention programs. As a former
teacher, I understand the importance of education in providing young
men and women with the background they need to lead successful lives.
This budget cuts many vital programs such as Head Start and Even Start
and freezes funding for Pell Grants.
More than 3.8 million women are looking for work, yet the
Administration cuts $79 million in funding for the Small Business
Administration, which helps women and minority owned small businesses
grow. There are more than 7 million small businesses owned by women.
The need for SBA assistance continues to be vital to my community.
This budget freezes funding for The Child Care and Development Block
Grant program, which provides child care assistance for low income
families and early education services to disadvantaged children and is
essential to working women nationwide.
Further, violence against women prevention programs and SBA Women's
Business Centers are underfunded, and no increase is requested by the
Administration for the National Women's Business Council, which
conducts invaluable research on issues of importance to women business
owners and their organizations.
Mr. Chairman, this budget fails to meet the fiscal challenges America
faces today and slashes programs that are the lifeline to working
families, especially women heads of households. I urge my colleagues to
support the Democratic substitute as a much more realistic budgetary
solution that restores funding to vital programs and achieves balance
in the budget and assistance to those who seek the American dream.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda
T. Sanchez).
(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the Republican budget because it provides virtually no
hope for the 20 million women without health insurance in this country.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
(Ms. CARSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican
budget because it shamelessly undercuts the funding for Violence
Against Women programs.
Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because it cuts
funding for Violence Against Women Programs.
The budget presented before us today provides only $362 million for
the Violence Against Women Act programs--a cut of $22 million below
this year's level.
Historicaly, domestic violence has been a silent epidemic. According
to the Commonwealth Fund, almost 4 million women are physically abused
each year in the United States.
Further statistics reveal that, in our country, battering is the
single major injury to women exceeding muggings, rapes, and auto
accidents combined.
Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in this
country, where they are more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped or
killed by a male partner than by any other type of assailant.
Each year, in my home-state of Indiana, thousands of women and
children flee to emergency shelters to escape violence within their
home. Approximately 90 percent of these abusers were a spouse, family
member, boyfriend, or separated spouse.
Ensuring that victims of domestic violence receive the necessary
services to protect themselves and their children is one of the most
important things this legislative body can do.
However, violence against women is not only a national issue.
Internationally, at least one in every three women has been beaten,
coerced into sex or abused during her lifetime.
Domestic violence encompasses all socioeconomic, racial, ethnic and
religious groups

[[Page H1445]]

worldwide. We can tackle the undignified treatment of women before it
matures into violence, by conducting early prevention programs to teach
young people the importance of supporting and respecting one another.
I will continue to support initiatives to obtain gender equality,
women's rights and put an end to violence against women here, in our
nation, and abroad. In order to do this we must make sure that VAWA is
fully funded within the budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget
because it is fiscally irresponsible, bad for the economy, and it
underfunds homeland security, education, veterans and women.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson).
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the
Republican budget because it cuts most programs for women, most
especially for Violence Against Women programs.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks
about the Republican budget because it cuts funding for the Violence
Against Women Programs.
The funding for violence against women supports most of the programs
created by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The programs impact
the lives of women and children by bolstering prosecution of domestic
violence, sexual assault, increasing services for victims by funding
shelters and increasing resources for law enforcement personnel. The
President's budget proposes to cut funding for these programs to $362
million, a reduction of $22 million.
Since the Violence Against Women Act was implemented, there has been
a 25 percent decrease in violence against women. This 25 percent
decrease demonstrates, the effectiveness of the policing and
prosecutions that these programs fund.
Violence against women is a global epidemic. It is not a woman's
issue and it is not a ``private'' issue. We need to restore the $22
million to the Violence Against Women Programs to show the women,
children and families across the country that we are committed to
creating a safer and more peaceful world for them.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps).
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the President's budget and
the Republican budget because of their lack of attention to the need of
the uninsured with no health care.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton).
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget
because the Republican budget virtually guarantees cuts in women's
programs as the President's budget already does.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Davis).
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican
budget because it jeopardizes Even Start for children and families.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request 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 oppose the Republican and
Presidential budget because it opposes the veterans' budget, civil
rights budget, women's support, children's support and homeland
security.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Watson).
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget
because it would place my USC girls' number one volleyball team, who
were here at the White House yesterday, at risk.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine
Brown).
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the
Republican budget because it continues a practice of reverse Robin
Hood, robbing from the poor and working people to give tax breaks to
the rich.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro).
(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget
because it does not accelerate the child tax credit for 250,000 men and
women who are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters).
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget
because it reduces the number of Section 8 housing vouchers which
provides subsidized housing for women, children and families.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this budget because while
this administration is proposing to spend billions of dollars to build
schools in Iraq, there is zero in this budget for school construction
for the public schools in America.

{time} 1830

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself half a minute just to say I
certainly have enormous respect for people's opinions, but I have to
say I do not see a volleyball team anywhere in the budget that was
mentioned, that we cut a volleyball team; and I am looking through
here, and I just do not see it.
I am amazed by the conversation we are hearing here today. My guess
is that there is not a volleyball team funded in any of the other
alternative budgets either, and if there is, I hope to God that it does
not pass.
We need to make sure that we control spending, and I do not think
volleyball spending should be part of the Federal budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Brown), a very distinguished member of the committee.
(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the
effort that the chairman has done to bring this document to the House
floor, and I rise in support of this resolution; and I have got a few
charts that we wanted to show to support the reason we are supporting
this budget resolution.
Since we met here to consider our budget last year at this time, our
economy, then struggling to gain traction, has made a tremendous,
remarkable comeback. The policies we have put in place to deal with the
extraordinary circumstances of the past few years have worked and
continue to work.
Today, our economy is showing robust growth. The strong growth is
expected to continue. In the third quarter of 2003, we saw the GDP
growth at 8.2 percent, the highest surge in 20 years; and that was
followed in the fourth quarter with a growth rate of 4.1 percent, still
strong by historical standards.
It is interesting to note that last year at this time, private
forecasters

[[Page H1446]]

were expecting real GDP growth of 3.6 percent for 2004. Now they are
expecting 4.7 percent for 2004.
Housing starts are running at their highest levels in 20 years.
Mortgage rates continue to run at their lowest levels in over 3
decades, and the bank prime rate is at its lowest level in 45 years.
Inflation has been running at its lowest level in nearly 4 decades.
U.S. real exports of goods and services rose in the fourth quarter at a
20 percent rate, the fastest pace in 7 years.
We have seen a significant increase in the stock market. The Dow
Jones Industrial Average is up 25 percent since March of last year.
Most important, labor markets are improving. The unemployment rate is
down 5.6 percent from 6.3 percent just last June.
We must keep this momentum. We cannot afford to cut this recovery off
at the knees just as we are getting back on track.
This budget will keep taxes from increasing. If we do not act,
Americans will face a tax increase next year. This budget helps to make
sure that a family of four earning $40,000 will not have to face a tax
increase of nearly $1,000 next year. Make no mistake, a tax increase
would hurt our economy and destroy jobs.
This budget places economic growth and job creation at the highest
priority by supporting those policies that are fueling the economic
recovery. We need to keep the economy and jobs growing, and this budget
supports those goals.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson) so that she can respond.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, what I did say is it would have placed my
number one USC volleyball team at risk because this bill eliminates the
Women's Educational Equity Act.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATSON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I would even provide the gentlewoman with
some time if she can find that in the budget. I have got the budget
here. If she can find volleyball or the Women's Athletic Act or
anything in this budget, I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman if she can find that for me in my budget.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
If the gentlewoman can either find it in my budget or someone else's
budget, the word ``volleyball'' does not appear and that act does not
appear in this budget or in the gentlewoman's alternative budget.
So I guess I would just suggest that this is where the rhetoric
starts getting a little bit, we have got to be a little careful here
when we start running to the floor, on the one hand, while concerning
ourselves with deficit spending and, on the other hand, coming to the
floor, which I would suggest is somewhat shrill, suggesting that we are
cutting volleyball teams in a budget like this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, Federal spending in recent years has been
growing, particularly in the wake of our national emergency on
September 11, at a record-breaking pace. The Congressional Budget
Office projects that current policies could produce a cumulative
deficit of nearly $2 trillion for the 10 years that lie immediately
ahead of us.
Federal spending breaks down today to a burden of more than $20,000
per household, the highest since World War II, and yesterday's report
by the Social Security and Medicare board of trustees was
disconcerting, to say the least, about the long-term obligations that
this government faces.
Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that I have
taken some strong stands in recent days to confront my concern for
runaway Federal spending, but it is with equal conviction that I rise
today to endorse and support the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2005.
The good news today in this budget is that Republicans in Congress
are taking an important first step under the leadership of the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and under the leadership of our
Speaker, our majority leader, and the balance of the majority of this
Congress to right the fiscal ship that has been listing in the
direction of government spending. We are truly taking an important
first step in this budget to put our fiscal house in order; and I, as a
conservative Member of this Congress, rise to extol its virtues.
This budget holds the line on spending. It makes permanent the tax
cuts of 2001 and 2003, and it funds our vital defense during a time of
war.
Mr. Chairman, during World War II, President Roosevelt signed a
budget that actually reduced nondefense spending. President Truman did
the same thing during the Korean War, and this budget resolution
follows the same ethic by freezing nondefense, nonhomeland security
spending at current levels for the first time in a generation.
Mr. Chairman, this budget is a tough solution to a tough problem. The
easy solution, on the other hand, would be to listen to many who
propose that simply some day in the not-too-distant future that we will
raise taxes, but one of the undeniable truths of the modern era is that
when we raise taxes on the American family, the Congress simply raises
the amount of money it spends in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, budgets are all about priorities, and there are those
in this body who claim that we are not spending enough in this budget;
but in the very same breath, we will hear on this floor tonight and
tomorrow a lament about deficits and about debt. Well, they cannot have
it both ways.
This budget sends a clear message to the American people that we are
truly committed to cutting the deficit and to winning the war on
terrorism and to growing this economy through tax cuts.
Again, I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for his
yeoman's work on this budget, as evidence of the fiscal conservative
principles for which this Republican majority is endorsed and
celebrated by millions. As a conservative, I support these priorities.
As a conservative, I support this budget and urge all of my colleagues,
Republicans and Democrats alike, who lament the deficits and the
fiscal, spendthrift ways of the past and urge their support in passage
of this 2005 budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for one more unanimous consent
request to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks about this budget because it needlessly underfunds
the Violence Against Women's Act and cuts so many programs important to
women.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking out of order here, and I thank
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) be yielded 10 minutes of the Joint Economic
Committee time for purposes of control.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, as the senior Democrat on the Joint Economic
Committee, I am honored to be here today to continue the tradition
begun by Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins.
I came here last year and accused President Bush of being a liar. A
year later, I feel no reason to apologize or change my opinion. Events
have proved that point.
It has been proven that there was no evidence of weapons of mass
destruction. In the economic report that the President signed, he tried
to spin a recovery on jobs but the fact is----

Announcement By The Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the gentleman to refrain from
personally offensive references against the President.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I will take that under consideration.

[[Page H1447]]

This is the first President since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs during
his Presidency. In the same report, the President tried to reinvent
history of our current recession and blame it on the Clinton
administration; but the National Bureau of Economic Research, the only
body that can date a recession, continues to say it began March 2001,
under the watch of George W. Bush.
More recently, there was subterfuge to hide an analysis done by the
administration experts on the cost of their Medicare prescription drug
bill, which narrowly passed the House, with assurance that it would
cost no more than $400 billion. The chairman of the Committee on the
Budget, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and others
assured us that, in fact, it would cost perhaps less than $400 billion,
when the administration knew that the costs would be higher than their
own analysis says, $535 billion.
They could not have passed the bill if their own Members had known
about this price tag. So what did they do? The administration
suppressed the information and told the actuary who had done the work
if he released that data he would be fired so fast his head would spin.
This is not an administration that can be trusted. They lie, they
bury facts, they threaten people to make sure that their side of the
story is presented, and it is reason enough alone to vote ``no'' on
this budget presented to us today.
The Republicans are playing games with numbers. The Americans deserve
to have an honest budget, and I do not think that the Republican budget
lives up to that standard. It has got an eternity time frame for Social
Security and Medicare; but if they used the same time frame for their
own budget, we would see deficits beyond our discovery of life on Mars.
Regardless of how we measure it, this budget is one more step to
privatize Social Security and Medicare.
For jobs and unemployment, we have got 12.6 million people under- or
unemployed and there are no unemployment insurance benefits to fulfill
those that expired at the end of last year.
In health care, 1.6 million more Americans, mostly children and
pregnant women, will lose their access to health care because of the
$13 billion cut from Medicaid and children's health program; 500,000
children will be dropped from their child care by 2009; and in
education $9.4 billion less for the No Child Left Behind Act than was
promised by the Republican administration.
The Republican budget shortcomings shortchange college students by
freezing the Pell grant awards, and it reduces other student aid. Any
way we look at it, this budget shortchanges American families. It
causes more people to join the ranks of those without health insurance.
It endangers the education of our children, and it fails to honestly
address the costs of the President's war with Iraq.
Like my friend, Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt, points out, and I
agree, this is a faith-based budget. It is a memo to God. It is our
Nation, the Republicans in it, telling God what our highest priorities
are, and in this Republican budget, we are telling God that making the
rich richer is much more important than educating our children,
providing quality health care for all our citizens and helping those
between jobs.
It is a sad commentary when we have to rely on distorted facts, made-
up figures, I am not allowed to suggest prevarication; but when we do
not have the numbers and make them up, the country should not have to
rely on falsehoods.

{time} 1845

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle) for the gentleman's hard work on this fiscally sound budget.
I would like to bring to Members' attention a very valuable programs
which pays for itself, saves the government money and energy, and
creates jobs in local communities. It is called the Energy Performance
Savings Performance Contracting, or ESPC.
It has been documented over time that many government facilities have
energy inefficient equipment and buildings that need to be modernized
so that they operate at peak efficiency. However, Federal agencies do
not have the funds, nor in some cases the expertise, to perform this
kind of work. The ESPC program allows the government to modernize
facilities without spending upfront funds. Additionally, the program
saves the government and taxpayers money and creates precious jobs
across the Nation.
Under ESPC, the private sector installs new energy efficient
equipment in Federal facilities at no upfront cost to the government.
Federal agencies then pay off this investment over time with the funds
saved on utility costs. It is important to note that the private sector
contractor guarantees these savings and, by law, the government does
not pay more for projects than it pays for in utilities.
Energy analysts estimate that more than 50 federally approved
projects worth close to $300 million are stalled at military bases and
Federal agency offices nationwide. Additionally, this lapse has cost
over 2,000 jobs nationwide.
The reauthorization of this valuable program has been stymied because
the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office
disagree on whether or not to score the program. The OMB and the CBO
have not scored the ESPC as a cost to the government since its
inception. However, this year while the OMB still does not score the
program, the CBO scores it at a significant cost over the next 10
years.
There is no doubt that energy efficiency is essential to meeting our
Nation's goals. As the single largest consumer of energy, the Federal
Government can do a great deal to help the Nation meet this goal,
especially through this program. Thus, it is my hope that the scoring
discrepancies between the OMB and the CBO can be resolved when the
budget resolution goes to conference.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to start off by thanking the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his incredible work on
this budget and for helping the American people understand what is at
stake here. And as far as I have heard, it has been scored so it seems
to me we are talking about different things here.
Here are the top 10 reasons we Democrats oppose the Republican budget
resolution. First, it makes the ballooning deficit even worse.
It fails to protect Social Security. It spends every penny of the
Social Security surplus over the next 5 years, $1 trillion.
It offers more of the same failed economic policies that have already
caused the loss of 3 million private sector jobs during this
administration.
It underfunds education and, specifically, the No Child Left Behind
Act by over $9 billion less than was promised.
It provides for $1.3 billion less than the Veterans' Affairs
Committee on a bipartisan basis recommended for our country's veterans.
It cuts homeland security at a time of national insecurity below even
the President's request by nearly $857 million.
It fails to protect the Nation's environment.
It cuts funding for the National Institutes of Health, Maternal and
Child Health.
It creates long-term deficits that will undermine economic growth and
fails to extend unemployment insurance to those who have lost their
jobs.
And during the war on terror, it actually cuts benefits to widows of
military retirees, limits improvements to military housing, and
discontinues last year's TRICARE for Reservists.
And the President's tax cut proposal is a gift that keeps on taking,
taking from our children, our families, and our seniors. His tax cut
takes from the next generation and replaces with that taking a mountain
of debt on the backs of our children. America simply cannot be red,
white and broke and meet its challenges at home and abroad; but that is
exactly where the Republican budget takes us.

[[Page H1448]]

Therefore, it is the duty of Democrats to bring these wrong
priorities for America to the light of day, and to offer an alternative
that reflects the priorities of America's working families by
stimulating the economy, by creating jobs, by expanding educational
opportunity, by improving health care, by strengthening homeland
security, those first responders we see the President take the pictures
with, but then he goes ahead and cuts their funding dramatically. It is
outrageous. Tell him to go see the firefighters now that he cut a
quarter of a billion dollars, and after he basically zeroed out the
Safer Act to help communities hire more firefighters, or the
interoperable communications equipment that is necessary. Tell the
firefighters how you are their friend and how you are their heroes with
this budget.
We do all of our things, however, in a positive way by creating
opportunities, and, yes, helping the firefighters and all those who
provide emergency management for homeland security while bringing our
budget into balance in 8 years.
In fact, over the next 5 years the Democratic budget is going to
provide over $9 billion more for education and training than the
Republican budget, $11 billion more for health care programs than the
Republican budget, $17 billion more for environmental protection than
the Republican budget, nearly $6 billion more for first responders for
port security, for aviation security, and for border security than the
Republican budget.
And the Democratic budget also targets $2 billion in fiscal year 2005
to support our troops and includes the full $2.5 billion increase that
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs says is critically needed for our
Nation's veterans.
It is time for Republicans to stop lamenting the deficit they
recklessly created and join us in balancing the budget just like
American families have to do every day of their lives, and give us an
opportunity for a future of hope, growth and opportunity, not a future
of debt and despair.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this budget
that continues the same failed economic policies that have moved our
record surpluses to record deficits in record time. Its single-minded
focus is on tax policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of
everyone else.
Let me give one example of the misguided tax priorities that guide
this budget. More than 25 million families received a $400-per-child
increase in the child tax credit last year. However, during final
negotiations of the tax legislation passed by this Congress, the
families of approximately 12 million children were excluded from this
increased credit. Among the families who did not receive the
acceleration of the tax credit are 250,000 men and women who today
continue to fight and die in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The 20 million
children who did not receive the full increase, including 12 million
who did not receive any increase at all, did not because their
families, they were told, do not pay enough in income taxes to receive
the credit. But yet these families pay taxes: payroll taxes, State and
local taxes, sale taxes, all of which place a far heavier burden on
those with the lowest income.
Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic substitute would right
this injustice. In addition to being the right thing to do for
families, this cut would stimulate our economy. Only about a quarter of
the $300 rebate from the last tax cut was put back into the economy.
Giving tax cuts to families who would spend the money immediately would
be the best stimulus we could give our economy right now.
Mr. Chairman, it does come down to priorities. By supporting the
Republican budget, we continue down the same path of failed economic
policy developed with misguided values and priorities; and by
supporting the Spratt substitute and extending the child tax credit to
these 6.5 million families, we draw upon our Nation's shared values. We
act with a shared sense of purpose and responsibility that helps us to
address the most important tasks before this country. That should be
the goal in this budget. That is what this institution should aspire to
do.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman).
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to concentrate on an area of this
budget that could have devastating effects on Medicaid coverage and
safety net institutions that serve the uninsured.
This budget requires cuts of $2.2 billion in the Medicaid and S-CHIP
programs, stripping away critically needed Federal funds from already
beleaguered and underfunded State Medicaid programs that serve the
poorest among us.
We know States are in budgetary crisis. We know we would have
millions more uninsured if we had not provided a temporary increase in
the Federal matching rate for Medicaid. But instead of providing funds
to extend this higher matching rate, there are no funds allocated for
that; and it will expire. Instead, we are compounding the problem by
requiring cuts in Federal funding for Medicaid and S-CHIP. Assuring
that these cuts do not occur is not and should not be a partisan issue.
I want to read from a letter Governor Schwarzenegger sent earlier
this week to the entire California delegation. He said, ``I am writing
to urge your opposition to proposed reductions in Medicaid funding that
could significantly jeopardize support for services to low-income,
underserved Californians. Given California's budget challenges, the
rising number of uninsured and the financially precarious position of
many of the State's safety net providers, California can ill-afford
reductions in Federal Medicaid spending.
``I am particularly concerned by any proposals that would reduce the
critical funding California uses to support its hospital safety net.
Clearly, reductions of this magnitude will place tremendous stress on
the State's already financially fragile health care safety net,
compelling hospitals to cut back on emergency and trauma care
throughout California and, quite possibly, put entire hospitals at risk
of closure.''
Mr. Chairman, surely anyone concerned about the 43 million Americans
who are already uninsured in this country must see the folly of
adopting cuts in this budget which would add to that number and
simultaneously cripple the safety net institutions which are their only
source of care. This is reason enough to vote against this budget.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the full text of Governor
Schwarzenegger's letter.

March 22, 2004.
Dear California Delegation Member: I am writing to urge
your opposition to proposed reductions in Medicaid funding
that could significantly jeopardize support for services to
low-income, underserved Californians. Given California's
budget challenges, the rising number of uninsured, and the
financially precarious position of many of the state's safety
net providers, California can ill afford reductions in
federal Medicaid spending.
California opposes reductions in Medicaid funding and
changes in current policy that would erode federal support of
the state's fragile health care delivery system. I am
particularly concerned by any proposals that would reduce the
critical funding California uses to support its hospital
safety net. Cuts in Medicaid funding for intergovernmental
transfers, for example, could put $900 million in federal
funds to California per year at risk; Los Angeles County
alone would lose $500 million in funding for its hospitals.
Clearly, reductions of this magnitude will place tremendous
stress on the state's already financially fragile health care
safety net, compelling hospitals to cut back on emergency and
trauma care throughout California and, quite possibly, put
entire hospitals at risk of closure.
I share Congress' commitment to further controlling
Medicaid spending in California and eliminating waste, fraud
and abuse in the program. Consistent with that commitment, I
have proposed a comprehensive redesign of our state's
Medicaid program to preserve health care coverage while
managing costs in a more effective manner. Additionally we
have a number of proposals to further the state's efforts to
crack down on fraud and abuse in the program. These efforts
will result in cost savings to both the State and federal
governments.
Moreover, California already operates one of the most cost-
effective Medicaid programs in the country. The state's low
per capita spending coupled with its low federal Medicaid
matching rate combine to make the federal per capita
contribution the lowest in the nation. As a result,
California cannot afford reductions in federal Medicaid
funding.
Over 6.5 million Californians rely on the state's Medicaid
program to access essential

[[Page H1449]]

health care services. As the budget process moves forward, I
urge you to oppose proposed cuts to Medicaid spending that
will undermine the system of health care low-income
Californians rely upon for their medical needs. I ask that
you not cut funds for reimbursing states for their Medicaid
costs or funds used by California to ensure that critical
hospitals in the State are able to provide emergency room and
trauma care.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for purposes of control.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes, and thank the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately what we have before us today by the
majority party is a status quo budget. It is a budget that continues
the failed economic policies which have not been working for American
families. It has been failing our seniors, failing working families,
and certainly is failing our veterans. We have heard debate about that
today.
But most importantly, I believe, it is going to fail the future of
our country, our children, by the underinvestment that is being made in
crucial education programs, by not fully funding the No Child Left
Behind law, by not reaching that guidepath to full funding of special
education.

{time} 1900

It undercuts vocational and technical education programs, the Perkins
loans, it underinvests in community colleges. We will pay a heavy price
in the future if this underinvestment continues.
As this chart demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, the history of the
Republican Congress when it comes to living up to the promise of fully
funding No Child Left Behind, over the last couple of fiscal years,
they have fallen way short of the promise to fully fund. This has been
the track record. Make no mistake, these are new Federal mandates,
requirements on local school districts, requiring them to do certain
things with our children; but they are not providing the resources and
tools they need to succeed.
Just a couple of weeks ago, we had Chairman Greenspan testify before
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. In his opinion, he felt
one of the most important priorities of investment we need to make in
the Federal budget is in education and job training programs so that
our children, our workers, are as competitive as they can be in this
new global marketplace. This Republican budget falls short of that
investment.
The Democratic substitute that we will be offering tomorrow has
substantial increases in investments in No Child Left Behind, special
education, vocational education, Perkins loans and investment in our
community colleges.
There is a clear difference in the vision of the future of this
Nation, where our priorities as a party lie, where our values are
shared throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, this majority budget falls
short of that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I am trying understand here, when we talk about the other side where
it is just talking about the fact that we are not living up to our
commitments. Just so everybody knows, there are some other charts here
that we want you to see.
Total education: Annual growth over the last 5 years in the education
accounts averaged 11 percent per year in those 5 years. So when we hear
this lament that we are not spending enough on education, here are the
facts. Eleven percent. There is no other part of government that has
been growing at that kind of rate. In fact, it is growing faster than
national defense.
Let me show you another one. Special education, over the last 5
years, the average growth was 19 percent. While they are complaining
about special education, we have not seen the final total, but I will
bet they do not fully fund special education in their budget. I bet
they do not reach that, do they? They just complain about it.
Yes, they say they give a little bit more, but we have been providing
19 percent per year. Spending has more than doubled over the last 5
years for special education.
Last but not least is No Child Left Behind. The No Child Left Behind
program funding has grown 40 percent under this President. Annual
growth over the last 4 years, my colleagues can see before them right
here. In fact, it has happened so fast, there are States, Iowa is one
of them, where Iowa actually had to turn back money that we are looking
to investigate, we want to find out exactly why it is that money that
went to Iowa and to other States under No Child Left Behind has now
been sent back. That is unconscionable at a time when our classrooms
and our teachers are talking to us, telling us that they need more
money.
We are increasing. We are meeting the totals. If the States had grown
at the level we have been growing at the Federal level, we would not be
in the predicament we are in. We are meeting our obligations. The
States are not. We are growing our budget. We will continue that
commitment.
So as the lament continues, just remember, the increases are in here
and the increases are coming.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am obviously referring to the broken
promise the President made in fully funding No Child Left Behind when
he signed it into law.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, in the 2000 campaign, President Bush
declared that he opposed nation-building. Who knew it was America he
was talking about? When we look at this higher education agenda, the
President can run for reelection saying he kept his promise against
nation-building.
Everybody understands the importance of higher education, opening
doors of economic opportunity in a time of changing economic
conditions. Pell Grants, the single largest educational opportunity we
provide at the Federal level, is frozen. In fact, as tuition has been
going up by 14 percent a year for the last 3 years, we have kept
constant the Pell Grant and have not allowed it to increase with the
cost of college education.
Today, at the University of Illinois, the average graduate from the
University of Illinois graduates on graduation day, gets a diploma plus
$18,000 in debt. They get their first Visa bill when they graduate from
college. We have frozen higher education assistance to middle-class
families.
During the campaign, President Bush promised to increase the Pell
Grant to $5,100. Despite an average tuition increase of 14 percent, the
Pell Grant today sits at $4,050. To me, that is a fascinating way to
invest in America's future. We make available all these types of
assistance to corporations. That child is as important to America's
future as a corporation, yet we have frozen and closed the doors of
economic opportunity.
And all while we were freezing our assistance to college education,
in Iraq we have opened up 2,300 schools and distributed 1.5 million
secondary and 800,000 primary school kits to the children of Iraq.
We need to have a budget that reflects our values here at home with
the same type of commitment we have held for the people of Iraq and for
their children. Here in America we are limiting the educational options
available to students and limiting the ability of Americans to compete
in the world marketplace.
I am glad to see the President kept his commitment, that is, to be
opposed to nation-building. Unfortunately, he has chosen America as his
model. This budget returns us and, in fact, you could label this budget
as a back-to-the-future budget. What has it resulted in in the last 3
years? Two-and-a-half million Americans have lost their jobs, 43
million Americans are without health care, 2 million American children
went from the middle class to poverty, and the most important fact is,
we have had a wage recession in America, a 3 percent decline in wage
income in America under this administration.
This budget consistently follows the path of the last 3 years, the
last three budgets of the President, and takes us back to the future to
an economic time

[[Page H1450]]

in which we have seen the job decline and the health care decline in
this country. Unfortunately, in the area of higher education, they have
frozen and kept the doors closed to middle-class families at a time
when it is essential for them to go forward.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds again just to
point out that the Democratic alternative, while they come to the floor
and lament that we do not fully fund No Child Left Behind, guess what?
The alternative budget presented by the Democrats does not fully fund
No Child Left Behind. Is that not interesting? In fact, the chairman of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce has called it somewhat
hypocritical that you would complain on one side and not propose a
budget that funds it on the other.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, in response to that, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, Americans have always known that education is about
more than education. They have always understood that education was
about their dreams, about their families, that education was about
their children and their communities, that it was about the health of
our economy and the future of our country. That is why we are so
terribly disappointed when we see the broken promises by the President
of these United States in this budget and the Republican Budget
Committee, when we see that special education is not fully funded.
And the gentleman is quite correct, it is not fully funded in our
budget because you gave away all the money. You made a conscious
decision 2 years ago in the Committee on the Budget not to fully fund
education. It is a dead letter, except for the parents and the children
who suffer from those disabilities and their families and looking for
that educational opportunity. That was a campaign promise of this
President, but it is broken in this budget, it was broken in last
year's budget, and it was broken in the budget before.
We argued about it in the committee, we had votes on the Senate
floor, we had votes on it here; and the Republicans killed it each and
every time we brought it up. Of course, then there was a promise of
this President that he was going to raise the Pell Grant. But again he
gave away all of the money, so he had to break his promise. He kept his
promise to the wealthy, but he could not keep his promise to kids who
were struggling to pay for their education. So the Pell Grant is worth
less now than it was in 1976, but the cost of a college education is
not what it was in 1976.
And then, of course, there is the granddaddy of all broken promises,
and that is, if we gave him real reforms in elementary and secondary
education, real reforms, he promised us in the Oval Office of the White
House that he would provide the real money to go along with that.
He got the most significant reforms in Federal education policy in 40
years. Those are his words. I agree with him. These are real. These are
important. They are starting to make a difference. But we did not get
the real resources to go with those real reforms. The President owes us
about $9 billion in various parts of this program; $7.2 billion alone
in Title I.
Yes, we can come up with a budget, but the fact of the matter is, the
President had other priorities. He simply chose to give tax cuts, and
then after he gave the tax cuts we had a war, we had 9/11, we had
another war, we had a recession.
It did not bother the President. It did not faze him. He kept his
promise to those wealthy people, those people making more than $4- or
$500,000 a year, but he could not keep his promise to the school
children. He just could not keep that promise. So he chose not to fully
fund No Child Left Behind.
I do not know what a Presidential promise is worth anymore.
Apparently not much to school children, not much to the disabled
community, it is not much to young people trying to finance their
education. They cannot take that Presidential promise to the bank. They
cannot take that Presidential promise to get service for their disabled
children. They cannot take that Presidential promise to get
supplementary services for their children in school who are having
trouble. As No Child Left Behind provides, they will not have that
qualified teacher in their classroom as the bill mandates the States to
do. No. And they will not have that restructuring of the local
education system as the bill mandates because the President did not
keep his promise.
The tragedy of this is Americans and their families understand the
value and importance of education, but this Republican budget does not.
It devalues education. Why does it do that? They are forced to do that,
because they made a decision about the tax cuts and to loot the
country. They looted the Treasury on behalf of the wealthy the first
day that they came to office, and there is nothing left in that
Treasury for the children of America, for their schools, for their
higher education, for their disabilities.
What a sad, sad portrait of the country. This portrait was
intentionally painted by this Republican administration, this President
and their friends at the Republican Budget Committee. It is a tragedy
for this Nation.
The Republican Budget Resolution provides for only a $2.8 billion
increase over a frozen FY 2004 education funding level. This provides
for meager increases in Title I, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), and Pell grant funding--leaving these programs
billions of dollars short of levels promised by the Bush Administration
and House Republicans:
The Republican Resolution would leave the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) $9.4 billion short of promised levels. This leaves our schools
with a nearly $27 billion deficit in NCLB funding compared to what was
promised when the law was enacted.
The House Republican Budget resolution shortchanges education and job
training programs at the time when American children, students and
workers need the assistance the most.
This year's House Republican Budget Resolution comes after yet
another paltry budget submission by President Bush. The Bush budget
represents the smallest increase in education spending in 9 years,
cutting $1.4 billion in critical education programs, including those
that improve family literacy, and provide school counselors to
elementary school children. The budget resolution also continues the
Administration's unprecedented level of proposed cuts to job training
and related programs--totaling $1.8 billion since he took office.
The House Republican Budget Resolution shortchanges Title I funding
by $7.2 billion. This Budget will deny nearly 5 million disadvantaged
children critical education services, such as extra help to become
proficient in reading and math.
The Republican Budget Resolution freezes the maximum Pell grant for
the third year in a row at $4,050 just as college tuition continues to
rise faster than family income.
The maximum Pell grant is worth $500 less (in real terms) than the
maximum grant in 1975-76. Not only do the Republicans fail to stop
tuition hikes, but they actually make college even more expensive by
freezing or cutting student aid and increasing taxes on students.
The Republican budget breaks President Bush's campaign promise to
provide a $5,100 Pell grant.
The House Republican Budget Resolution also calls for a freeze on
teacher quality, after school, and technology programs. This means
fewer professional development opportunities for teachers, fewer safe
learning environments before and after school and less technologically
advanced classrooms.
The Republican Resolution would leave us over $11 billion short of
fully funding special education. This budget calls for yet another $1
billion increase for special education. At this rate of increase
America's children with disabilities will never benefit from full
funding of IDEA.
The House Republican Budget Resolution would leave no room for any
increase in Head Start funding. This means zero dollars to expand the
program to serve more children and no added resources to improve
program quality.
During the Bush Administration, 2.2 million jobs have been lost--the
worst job creation record in 70 years. To keep pace with the number of
jobs available for working adults when President Bush took office, we
would need to create 7.1 million new jobs today. In addition, there are
over 2.8 million workers who would be engaged in the labor force, but
they have either dropped out entirely or failed

[[Page H1451]]

to enter the labor market because of the lack of jobs.
Over 760,000 people have exhausted their unemployment benefits
between the end of December and the end of February, and two million
are projected to lose their benefits by June without an extension of
these benefits. To make matters worse, President Bush has proposed to
cut nearly $1.8 billion in job training and vocational education
funding since he took office, eliminating training opportunities for
thousands of workers. Now House Republicans answer these dire economic
conditions by proposing a Budget Resolution without any meaningful help
for American workers:
The Republican Budget Resolution would freeze job training and
vocational education funding. The Budget resolution utilizes its paltry
increase for programs other than job training, leaving no room for an
increase for these critical initiatives.
The Republican Budget Resolution contains no funding for an extension
of unemployment benefits. The Bush Administration and Congressional
Republicans have failed to extend unemployment benefits despite
continued high unemployment and lack of job growth, and despite the
fact that $20 billion will be sitting, untapped, in the Unemployment
Insurance Trust funds at the end of March.
President Bush's budget severely cuts available child care assistance
and the Republican budget resolution does nothing to rectify this
situation. Despite the importance of quality child care on later
academic achievement and despite research demonstrating how child care
is the most important work support keeping low income workers employed,
the Republican budgets significantly decrease the number of children
served by the federal child care assistance program.
According to the President's own budget documents, his decision to
freeze child care funding will lead to more than a 10 percent decrease
in child care assistance for low income workers. Despite serving only
15 percent of eligible children to begin with, the Administration chose
to cut the number of children served by child care assistance, from 2.5
million in 2003 to 2.2 million by 2009.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say, yes,
but you did not, either. You had the choice to put an alternative
budget on the floor to fully fund the promises that you are complaining
about here today and you chose not to. So be careful what you promise
on the campaign trail.
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.
Gilchrest) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman 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. 393) establishing the congressional budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and setting forth
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through
2009, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________