Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 39 (Thursday, March 25, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 39 (Thursday, March 25, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1495-H1565]
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 House Resolution 574 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} 1150

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. LaTourette (Chairman pro tempore)
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, March 24, 2004, all time for general debate pursuant to that
order had expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 574, no further general debate is in
order and the concurrent resolution is considered read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The text of House Concurrent Resolution 393 is as follows:

H. Con. Res. 393

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 is hereby
established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through 2009 are 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 2005.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Submission of report on savings to be used for members of the
Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[[Page H1496]]

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

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

Sec. 301. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for health insurance for the
uninsured.
Sec. 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Family Opportunity Act.
Sec. 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Military Survivors' Benefit
Plan.
Sec. 304. Reserve fund for pending legislation.

Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

Sec. 311. Contingency procedure for surface transportation.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 402. Emergency legislation.
Sec. 403. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990.
Sec. 404. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.

TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

Sec. 501. Sense of the House on spending accountability.
Sec. 502. Sense of the House on entitlement reform.

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 2009:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,272,966,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,457,215,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,619,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,721,568,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,818,559,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,922,133,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be reduced are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: -$179,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $19,919,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $34,346,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $33,376,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $27,231,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $30,927,000,000.
(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: $1,952,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,010,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,071,186,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,193,395,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,311,770,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,431,782,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,911,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,007,926,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,083,910,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,169,446,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,277,071,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,393,946,000,000.
(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: $638,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $550,711,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $464,075,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $447,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $458,512,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $471,813,000,000.
(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: $7,436,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $8,087,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $8,675,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $9,244,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,823,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,419,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $4,385,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,775,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $5,060,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $5,312,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $5,560,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,807,000,000,000.

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 2009 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $461,544,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $451,125,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $419,634,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $447,114,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $442,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $439,098,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $464,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,927,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $486,149,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $465,542,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $508,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $487,186,000,000.
(2) Homeland Security (100):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $29,559,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,834,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $34,102,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,997,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $33,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $35,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,635,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $36,520,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $40,420,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,401,000,000.
(3) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $43,604,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,281,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $26,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $27,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,017,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $27,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,714,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $28,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,323,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $28,228,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,099,000,000.
(4) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $22,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,897,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $22,813,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,453,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $22,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,683,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $23,042,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,743,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $23,157,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,763,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $23,274,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,863,000,000.
(5) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $2,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $2,863,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,201,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $2,604,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,397,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,583,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $2,629,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,285,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $891,000,000.
(6) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $32,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,210,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $31,212,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,868,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $31,568,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,911,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $31,897,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,153,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,128,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $32,777,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,804,000,000.
(7) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $19,908,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,434,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $21,087,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,501,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $23,374,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $24,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,199,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $24,042,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,957,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,903,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,956,000,000.
(8) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $17,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,748,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $10,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,782,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $10,242,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,842,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $9,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,769,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:

[[Page H1497]]

(A) New budget authority, $9,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,190,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,580,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,740,000,000.
(9) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $62,937,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,280,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $65,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,988,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $66,075,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,204,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $68,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,131,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $69,578,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,545,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $70,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,452,000,000.
(10) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,758,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $11,867,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,233,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $11,655,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,484,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $11,715,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $11,692,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $11,752,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,510,000,000.
(11) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $89,463,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $92,523,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $93,596,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $94,243,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $94,738,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,975,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $95,366,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,685,000,000.
(12) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $236,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $235,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $245,095,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $244,936,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $252,639,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $252,495,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $266,117,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $265,196,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $284,970,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $284,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $304,034,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $303,460,000,000.
(13) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $269,567,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,759,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $288,166,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $289,126,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $322,974,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $322,549,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $362,759,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $363,016,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $387,838,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $387,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $414,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $413,853,000,000.
(14) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $329,744,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $336,074,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $337,318,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $341,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $335,387,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $339,098,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $340,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $352,809,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $355,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $361,830,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $363,465,000,000.
(15) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,396,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,396,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,094,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $16,589,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,049,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,049,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,988,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,989,000,000.
(16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $61,179,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $70,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,563,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $68,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,597,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $66,621,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,007,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $69,842,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,459,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $70,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,106,000,000.
(17) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $29,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $30,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,025,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $27,430,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,036,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $27,480,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,744,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,616,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $27,755,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,621,000,000.
(18) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $23,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $17,198,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $17,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $17,573,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,401,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $17,230,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,075,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $17,383,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,044,000,000.
(19) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $240,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $240,471,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $270,698,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $270,698,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $318,909,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $318,909,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $364,463,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $364,463,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $398,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $398,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $427,464,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $427,464,000,000.
(20) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,850,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $250,000,000.
(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$47,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$47,233,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,475,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,477,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$62,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$63,767,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$65,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$60,856,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,893,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste,
Fraud, and Abuse.--(1) Not later than July 15, 2004, the
House committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their
recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After
receiving those

[[Page H1498]]

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 $110,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $371,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(B) Committee on education and the workforce: instruction
to provide fairness in federal workers compensation.--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 $5,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 2005 and $43,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(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 $410,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $2,185,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(D) Committee on government reform: instruction to increase
resources to authorize information sharing to allow federal
benefit programs limited access to federal and state
administrative data to verify eligibility.--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 $170,000,000 in outlays
for fiscal year 2005 and $2,365,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(E) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by
$1,126,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $8,269,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(b) Submission Providing for the Extension of Expiring Tax
Relief.--(1) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall
report a reconciliation bill not later than October 1, 2004,
that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce revenues by not more than
$13,182,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and by not more than
$137,580,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through
2009.
(2) If a reconciliation bill, as reported pursuant to
paragraph (1), does not increase the deficit for fiscal year
2005 or for the period of fiscal years 2005 though 2009 above
the levels permitted in such paragraph, the chairman of the
House Committee on the Budget may revise the reconciliation
instructions under this section to permit the Committee on
Ways and Means to increase the level of direct spending
outlays, make conforming adjustments to the revenue
instruction to decrease the reduction in revenues, and make
conforming changes in allocations to the Committee on Ways
and Means and in budget aggregates.

SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON DEFENSE SAVINGS.

In the House, not later than May 15, 2004, the Committee on
Armed Services shall submit to the Committee on the Budget
its findings that identify $2,000,000,000 in savings from (1)
activities that are determined to be of a low priority to the
successful execution of current military operations; or (2)
activities that are determined to be wasteful or unnecessary
to national defense. Funds identified should be reallocated
to programs and activities that directly contribute to
enhancing the combat capabilities of the U.S. military forces
with an emphasis on force protection, munitions and
surveillance capabilities. For purposes of this subsection,
the report by the Committee on Armed Services shall be
inserted in the Congressional Record by the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget not later than May 21, 2004.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

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

SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH INSURANCE
FOR THE UNINSURED.

In the House, if legislation is reported, or if an
amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon
is submitted, that provides health insurance for the
uninsured, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may
make the appropriate adjustments in allocations and
aggregates to the extent such measure is deficit neutral in
fiscal year 2005 and for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.

SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE FAMILY
OPPORTUNITY ACT.

In the House, if the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reports legislation, or if an amendment thereto is offered or
a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides
medicaid coverage for children with special needs (the Family
Opportunity Act), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may make the appropriate adjustments in allocations and
aggregates to the extent such measure is deficit neutral in
fiscal year 2005 and for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.

SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MILITARY
SURVIVORS' BENEFIT PLAN.

In the House, if the Committee on Armed Services reports
legislation, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a
conference report thereon is submitted, that increases
survivors' benefits under the Military Survivors' Benefit
Plan, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make
the appropriate adjustments in allocations and aggregates to
the extent such measure is deficit neutral resulting from a
change other than to discretionary appropriations in fiscal
year 2005 and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through
2009.

SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR PENDING LEGISLATION.

In the House, for any bill, including a bill that provides
for the safe importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs
or places limits on medical malpractice litigation, that has
passed the House in the first session of the 108th Congress
and, after the date of adoption of this concurrent
resolution, is acted on by the Senate, enacted by the
Congress, and presented to the President, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may make the appropriate adjustments
in the allocations and aggregates to reflect any resulting
savings from any such measure.

Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

SEC. 311. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

(a) In General.--If the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House reports legislation, 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: $41,569,000,000,
(2) for fiscal year 2005: $42,657,000,000,
(3) for fiscal year 2006: $43,635,000,000,
(4) for fiscal year 2007: $45,709,000,000,
(5) for fiscal year 2008: $46,945,000,000, or
(6) for fiscal year 2009: $47,732,000,000,
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,
for fiscal year 2005, and for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2009 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.--For fiscal year 2004 or 2005,
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
$40,116,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 or $41,204,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005 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 and appropriate aggregates 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 IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(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) Limitation.--In the House, an advance appropriation may
be provided for fiscal year 2006 or 2007 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
$23,568,000,000 in new budget authority.
(c) Definition.--In this subsection, 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 2005 that first
becomes available for any fiscal year after 2005.

SEC. 402. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

[[Page H1499]]

(b) Exemption of Emergency Provisions.--In the House, if a
bill or joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is
offered thereto or a conference report is filed thereon, that
designates a provision as an emergency requirement pursuant
to this section, then the new budget authority, new
entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting
therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303,
311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c) Designations.--
(1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation
is designated as an emergency requirement under subsection
(b), the committee report and any statement of managers
accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of
the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in
paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the
House without being reported, then the committee shall cause
the explanation to be published in the Congressional Record
in advance of floor consideration.
(2) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency
requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to
life, property, or national security and is--
(i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;
(ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(iv) 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.

SEC. 403. 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.

SEC. 404. 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
appropriate Committee on the Budget; and
(2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments
to such levels to carry out this resolution.

TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

SEC. 501. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) authorizing committees should actively engage in
oversight utilizing--
(A) the plans and goals submitted by executive agencies
pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993; and
(B) the performance evaluations submitted by such agencies
(that are based upon the Program Assessment Rating Tool which
is designed to improve agency performance);
in order to enact legislation to eliminate waste, fraud, and
abuse to ensure the efficient use of taxpayer dollars;
(2) all Federal programs should be periodically
reauthorized and funding for unauthorized programs should be
level-funded in fiscal year 2005 unless there is a compelling
justification;
(3) committees should submit written justifications for
earmarks and should consider not funding those most
egregiously inconsistent with national policy;
(4) the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution should be
vigorously enforced and legislation should be enacted
establishing statutory limits on appropriations and a PAY-AS-
YOU-GO rule for new and expanded entitlement programs; and
(5) Congress should make every effort to offset nonwar-
related supplemental appropriations.

SEC. 502. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ENTITLEMENT REFORM.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that welfare was
successfully reformed through the application of work
requirements, education and training opportunity, and time
limits on eligibility.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
authorizing committees should--
(1) systematically review all means-tested entitlement
programs and track beneficiary participation across programs
and time;
(2) enact legislation to develop common eligibility
requirements for means-tested entitlement programs;
(3) enact legislation to accurately rename means-tested
entitlement programs;
(4) enact legislation to coordinate program benefits in
order to limit to a reasonable period of time the Government
dependency of means-tested entitlement program participants;
(5) evaluate the costs of, and justifications for,
nonmeans-tested, nonretirement-related entitlement programs;
and
(6) identify and utilize resources that have conducted
cost-benefit analyses of participants in multiple means- and
nonmeans-tested entitlement programs to understand their
cumulative costs and collective benefits.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the concurrent resolution
is in order except the amendments printed in House Report 108-446. Each
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, 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 10 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 108-446.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 1 Offered by Mr. Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and pursuant to the rule, 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:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 1 offered by
Mr. Cummings:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005.

The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2005 is hereby established and that
the appropriate levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 are
hereby set forth.

SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2009:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2005: $1,492,715,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,656,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,760,168,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,857,859,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,963,833,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be increased are as follows:
Fiscal year 2005: $15,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,554,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $5,224,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $12,069,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,773,000,000.
(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 2005: $2,040,121,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,099,869,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,221,225,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,338,667,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,457,855,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2005: $2,022,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,111,755,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,196,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,303,025,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,419,950,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2005: -$529,554,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: -$455,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: -$436,814,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: -$445,166,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: -$456,117,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2005: $8,066,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $8,645,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $9,204,000,000,000.

[[Page H1500]]

Fiscal year 2008: $9,770,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,351,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2005: $4,754,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $5,030,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $5,272,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $5,507,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,739,000,000,000.

SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2005 through 2009 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $408,486,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $439,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $430,694,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $428,774,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $451,728,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $434,219,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $473,293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $453,061,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $494,923,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $473,956,000,000.
(2) Homeland Security (100):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $36,531,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,552,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $35,902,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,421,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $37,628,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $39,083,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,478,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $43,264,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,148,000,000.
(3) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $28,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $29,585,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,282,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $29,745,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $29,904,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,036,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $30,064,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,925,000,000.
(4) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $22,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,458,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $22,936,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $23,051,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,752,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $23,166,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,772,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $23,283,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,872,000,000.
(5) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $2,863,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,201,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $2,604,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,397,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,583,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $2,629,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,285,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $891,000,000.
(6) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $31,460,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,032,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $31,817,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,120,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $32,147,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,385,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,353,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,368,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $33,030,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,056,000,000.
(7) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $21,246,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,632,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $23,534,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,461,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $24,439,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,354,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $24,203,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,113,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $25,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,112,000,000.
(8) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $10,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,782,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $10,242,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,842,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $9,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,769,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $9,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,190,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,580,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,740,000,000.
(9) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $65,121,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,069,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $66,176,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,304,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $68,364,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,232,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $69,680,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $70,547,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,554,000,000.
(10) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $12,230,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $12,020,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,667,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $12,082,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,906,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $12,060,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,725,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $12,122,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,860,000,000.
(11) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $111,283,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,270,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $112,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $111,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $113,191,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $112,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $113,781,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $112,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $114,504,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $113,755,000,000.
(12) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $246,371,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $245,453,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $253,921,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $253,550,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $267,406,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $266,377,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $286,265,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $285,496,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $305,336,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $304,756,000,000.
(13) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $288,166,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $289,126,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $322,974,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $322,549,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $362,759,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $363,016,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $387,838,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $387,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $414,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $413,853,000,000.
(14) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $343,018,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $345,412,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $341,115,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $343,990,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $345,897,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $348,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $358,595,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $360,817,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $367,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $369,265,000,000.
(15) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,094,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $16,589,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,049,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,049,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,988,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,989,000,000.
(16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $79,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $76,205,000,000.

[[Page H1501]]

Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $77,264,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $76,140,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $75,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $78,692,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,211,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $79,401,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,942,000,000.
(17) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $31,874,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,445,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $29,174,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,663,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $29,232,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $29,377,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $29,525,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,388,000,000.
(18) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $17,198,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $17,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $17,573,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,401,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $17,230,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,075,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $17,383,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,044,000,000.
(19) Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $270,331,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $270,331,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $317,882,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $317,882,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $362,839,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $362,839,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $396,309,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $396,309,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $424,487,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $424,487,000,000.
(20) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,850,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $--.
(B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $--.
(B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $--.
(B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $--.
(B) Outlays, $250,000,000.
(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-52,475,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,477,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$62,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$63,767,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$65,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$60,856,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,893,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am proud to introduce the Congressional Black Caucus 2005 fiscal
year budget alternative. Our theme and philosophy for the CBC 2005
budget alternative is ``Investing in America's Future, Restoring Fiscal
Responsibility and Fulfilling Our Shared Sacrifice.''
Before we begin, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Davis), and all the Congressional Black Caucus members on
the Committee on the Budget and the entire Congressional Black Caucus
for their diligent work in putting this budget together. The
Congressional Black Caucus thought it vitally important that we provide
a Federal budget that goes to the center of people's lives.
Contrary to the rosy picture painted by the President, the majority
of Americans are hurting under the Bush administration's fiscal
policies.
Over 40 million Americans are without health insurance. Almost 9
million Americans woke up this morning without a job, and thousands of
those individuals have become discouraged by the stagnant economy and
have given up looking for work. Most alarming, Mr. Chairman, the
American dream of a quality education remains out of reach for millions
of children and families. The Congressional Black Caucus budget
alternative answers all of these pressing issues and at the same time
places our Nation back on the path of fiscal responsibility and
accountability.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just to start off the debate, we are obviously very interested in
hearing what the Congressional Black Caucus has to offer. While we may
disagree on the specifics, the caucus has almost every year provided
its full alternative budget. As the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget, I respect the fact that they would do so. I am going to oppose
it, I respectfully oppose it; but I certainly appreciate the fact that
the caucus would come forth with a full budget proposal. We look
forward to hearing the debate as a proponent.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott), distinguished member of the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget is
committed to making America more secure by investing in our homeland
security, equipping our troops, and caring for our veterans. It also
adds to our security by funding initiatives such as the COPS program,
local law enforcement block grants, and juvenile crime prevention
programs. The CBC alternative builds for America's future and addresses
domestic challenges our country faces. It fully funds No Child Left
Behind, provides funds for school construction, and increases funding
for other education and job-training programs. The CBC alternative also
provides funding for the minority health initiative, health insurance
for the uninsured, supports child nutrition programs, funds job
creation programs under the SBA, and extends unemployment insurance
benefits.
The funding for these important domestic needs comes from two
sources: one, a reduction in the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for
individuals whose gross income exceeds approximately $200,000; and the
closing of tax loopholes, abusive shelters, and methods of tax
avoidance. These funds total an estimated $35.5 billion in fiscal year
2005 and are used for the domestic spending and deficit reduction parts
of the budget.
The funding for urgent homeland security needs, veterans programs and
benefits, and additional support for the troops in Iraq comes from two
sources: a $9.2 billion reduction in ballistic missile defense and $3.6
billion from instances of fraud, waste and abuse within the Department
of Defense such as defense contractor overcharges. Some of these funds
have been reallocated to protect our troops in Iraq by providing them
with bulletproof vests, vehicle armor, personal support equipment,
night-vision goggles and radio jammers to protect personnel and
vehicles from improvised explosive devices.
Another portion of these funds is allocated to address vital homeland
security needs, including rail and port security grants, cargo
screening equipment, first responders, communications systems for first
responders, Federal air marshals, and the Centers for Disease Control.
The remainder of these funds are used to restore cuts in veterans
health care and provide enhanced benefits to our veterans in survivor
benefits, medical and prosthetic research, long-term care, mental
health care and GI bill benefits. The alternative budget also
eliminates the disabled veterans tax. We believe that the sum of all of
these initiatives will make us more secure as a Nation.
At the same time that we invest in America and our future, the CBC
alternative recognizes that we cannot place the burden of our choices
on our children and grandchildren. A top priority

[[Page H1502]]

of the CBC is to address the exploding deficit. The CBC alternative
budget therefore reduces the deficit by $70 billion compared to the
House majority's budget over the next 5 years. This fiscal
responsibility is rewarded with a reduction of $8 billion in interest
payments over that same period of time compared to the House majority's
budget. Members of the CBC have worked tirelessly to create a budget
that is fiscally responsible and recognizes the needs of the American
people. It is a sound budget that protects and promotes the best
interests of America.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. Majette).
Ms. MAJETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this substitute with my
colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus. In crafting this
alternative budget, we were faced with the reality that the President's
fiscal policies of the last 4 years have squandered the surplus and
pushed the debt sky high. We find ourselves with a pressing need to
reduce the deficit now. We owe it to our children and grandchildren.
Therefore, what this budget alternative does is to allocate our limited
national resources to our shared national priorities. This is a budget
that every Member of this body can support. Those programs receiving
increased funding in this budget are truly shared priorities that
address our Nation's biggest challenges.

{time} 1200

The first challenge that our Nation faces is the lack of an available
job for every willing worker, and Chairman Greenspan testified that we
are graduating too few skilled workers and that our students are
languishing at a low skill level. That is why the largest increase in
spending in this budget over the Republican bill is in education.
First and foremost, the CBC budget would fully fund No Child Left
Behind at the authorized level. In addition, this budget devotes
additional resources to Head Start, IDEA, Pell grants, and job training
programs. This budget also stimulates our economy by funding vital
programs that help small businesses, including the Small Business
Administration's 7(a) program, microloans, and the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership. It is essential that we assist small businesses
in their efforts to create more jobs. The CBC budget offsets this
additional funding by repealing the tax cuts for Americans making over
$200,000 a year and by closing corporate loopholes.
The second priority realized in the CBC budget is need to provide for
a strong national defense and to support our troops and veterans. The
CBC budget provides money to better armor the Humvees that carry our
troops and to buy body armor for every soldier in the field, and it
keeps our promises to our veterans. We will continue to care for them,
and this budget allocates almost $9 billion in additional funding above
what the Republican majority would devote to our veterans.
These defense, homeland security, and veterans assistance priorities
will be paid for simply by redirecting funds from the failed missile
defense system and by recouping money that Halliburton has overcharged
the American taxpayers.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of the CBC budget
as it reduces the deficit today and meets our most pressing needs while
protecting us for the future.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the chairman for his
leadership. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his
leadership in working to make a budget, presenting to this body a real
and progressive alternative for us.
Mr. Chairman, during this debate and also for many weeks now, we have
made a clear case for why and how the Republican budget sacrifices our
children, our seniors, our security, our environment, our economy. They
do this in order to advance special interest, money interest, and to
promote tax breaks for the wealthy. The Republican budget does not
fulfill our most fundamental requirement of providing for the common
defense; the Congressional Black Caucus budget does. $9 billion for
ballistic missile defense does not provide for that defense. It diverts
terribly scarce resources into a program that really does not meet our
own most urgent security needs and probably will not work anyway.
Let us be clear, ballistic missile defense would not have prevented
September 11, and the approach taken in the Republican budget will not
prevent its recurrence.
The CBC alternative budget more than fulfills our fundamental
requirement of providing for the common defense. Instead of continuing
to give Halliburton a license to steal, that is about $3 million a
year, our budget furthers our commitment to our veterans who are
returning home from war, and they deserve the economic security and
health care that they were promised. Instead of throwing billions of
dollars, billions of good money, on a bad missile defense system, our
budget invests in our own security by giving increased homeland
security resources, job training, health care, education, housing. We
have a budget that provides for housing and education, HIV/AIDS
services and prevention, and foreign aid.
So I am very proud to support this budget which invests in our future
rather than bankrupting our children. That is the choice really that we
have today. So I urge all Members to support this budget.
And, again, I congratulate the Congressional Black Caucus for their
fine work.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the CBC substitute because it
steps up to the needs of key education programs.
The Republican budget includes meager increases for important
programs like No Child Left Behind; the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, IDEA; and Pell grant funding. Without the additional
funding provided by the CBC budget, these programs cannot serve
eligible students who are relying on them, relying on them for the
education they need, the education they deserve to become self-
sufficient adults who contribute to America.
The Republican budget proposal shortchanges No Child Left Behind by
$9.4 billion. It does not come close to meeting the Federal promise to
fund 40 percent of the costs of IDEA, and it shortchanges the 5.3
million low-income college students who rely on Pell grants to access
their higher education training. The CBC budget improves funding for
all of these programs without increasing the Federal deficit like the
Republican budget would.
The CBC budget adds up for all Americans, and I urge my colleagues to
adopt it.
The Republican budget includes only meager increases for important
programs like No Child Left Behind, the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), and Pell grant funding.
Without the additional funding provided in the CBC budget, these
programs cannot serve eligible students who are relying on them for the
education they need and deserve to become self-sufficient adults who
contribute to America.
The Republican budget proposal shortchanges No Child Left Behind by
$9.4 billion; it doesn't come close to meeting the Federal promise to
fund 40 percent of the cost of IDEA; and it shortchanges the 5.3
million low-income college students who rely on Pell grants to access
higher education.
The CBC budget improves funding for these programs without increasing
the Federal deficit like the Republican budget does.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for
yielding me this time. And I also want to commend the Congressional
Black Caucus for putting together this budget, a budget which
recognizes that reentry of individuals coming out of correctional
institutions as one of the great needs and one of the great problems
that exist in our society.
Unfortunately, the President's budget takes away from justice
programs that would facilitate the reentry of these individuals. The
Congressional Black Caucus budget restores those programs to help the
640,000 people who

[[Page H1503]]

come out of jails and prisons each year to find their way back into
meaningful participation in society. And for that reason I strongly
support the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
Mr. Chairman, I have always been told that budgets are a way of
expressing one's positions and priorities in real dollars and cents;
therefore, when we look at the Bush budget, one experiences mixed
emotions, emotions that suggest concurrence that we need a strong
defense budget, we need serious resources to fight terror and we do
indeed need to provide for Homeland Security.
However, as we fight the war against terrorism, we also need to fight
against illiteracy, poverty, hunger, malnutrition, poor health,
inadequate housing, and environmental protection. We need to try and
make sure that there is money to tackle correction reform, money to
make education, rehabilitation and training viable in parts of our
correctional system. We need money to help re-integrate ex-offenders
back into normal life, otherwise, we keep sending them back to prison,
thereby, costing the taxpayers money. Monies we should not have to
spend especially, when we help them to become self-sufficient.
During the State of the Union Address in January, President Bush
said, ``600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into
society'' this year, and these Americans are in need of help. Many of
these individuals are never able to find a decent place to live; cannot
access various entitlement programs such as public housing, Pell
grants, and, in some instances, food stamps; and are oftentimes denied
employment because of their past criminal convictions. There is little
wonder that 52 percent of these individuals end up back in jail.
President Bush articulated the need for education, job training and
housing well when he said ``America is the land of second chance, and
when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a
better life.''
The Republican's budget cuts criminal justice and crime control
programs for fiscal year 2005 by $494 million and continues to increase
cuts for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 by $4.2 billion. I am concerned
about the Republican's budget not adequately addressing certain issues
within the criminal justice system that pertain to the Justice
Assistance Grant Program which is cut by $468 million, Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant Program cut by $219 million, Department of
Justice reentry program to help facilitate individuals with felony
convictions back into normal community life is cut by $300 million and
the Edward Byrne Memorial grant programs used to fight drugs in our
communities is cut by $477 million. This budget plan is unfair, unjust
and fiscally irresponsible. It shortchanges the domestic needs of our
country.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and chair of the
Asian-Pacific Caucus.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the CBC for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the
House Republican budget resolution and a hardy support for the
Congressional Black Caucus's alternative budget.
As a former teacher and a principal, I understand how important
quality education is for all Americans. Unfortunately, the Republican
budget fails to fund this national priority of public education.
Republicans leave the No Child Left Behind Act $9.4 billion short of
promised levels. They shortchange the title I funding by $7.2 billion,
denying nearly 5 million disadvantaged children of educational
services. The Republican budget freezes the maximum Pell grants for the
third year in a row, while college tuitions continue to rise.
However, on the other hand, the CBC budget fully funds the No Child
Left Behind Act, fully funding the promise Congress made to our
Nation's schools. The CBC alternative also funds school construction to
provide safe and quality learning environments.
Mr. Chairman, our national budget should be like our family budget, a
reflection of our priorities and values. It should be a budget based on
making the right choices. Do we make room for more expensive tax cuts
or provide quality education for our Nation's students?
I believe our choice is clear. Please support the CBC's alternative
budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First and foremost, let me say that obviously we do not agree with
some of the facts and figures laid out by my friends on the other side
in their criticism of not only the Republican budget, which is the base
bill here, but also the President's budget.
Mr. Chairman, be that as it may, in good comity with my colleagues, I
ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and I ask unanimous consent that he be
allowed to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the
gentleman from Maryland would now have 17\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith) for a statement.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa
for yielding me this time.
I think we have got to be very careful about increasing taxes. There
are so many needs out there that it is easy to suggest that we should
spend more money. But reflecting on the actuaries' report that came out
the day before yesterday for Social Security and Medicare it is bad
news. They are now suggesting that if we do not deal with these
unfunded liabilities, where the promises are over and above the
revenues coming in, we have a future that is going to be very
disastrous and complicated.
Their estimate is that in 15 years, it is going to take 28 percent of
our current general fund budget to cover the difference between the
taxes coming in for Social Security and Medicare and what is needed to
fulfill the promises we have made. In 25 years, it is going to take
over 50 percent of the general fund budget, to cover those two
programs.
We cannot just continue to increase taxes. We have to start
controlling the growth in government and the amount of revenue we are
taking out of the pockets of the American people.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the first vice chair of the Congressional
Black Caucus.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chairman for yielding me this time.
Let me just say to my good friend that the Congressional Black Caucus
budget is based upon shared sacrifice. In fact, we do provide 30.5
billion in additional program dollars, but we also provide nearly $5
billion towards deficit reduction, shared sacrifice, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say this. We realize that we have to protect the most
vulnerable. So we protect the child care tax credit, the elimination of
the marriage penalty, and the 10 percent tax bracket, but what we do
say is that we rescind the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 to those making
more than $200,000. That is shared sacrifice.
What I am concerned about is, we provide $2.4 billion for homeland
security and we give $900 million to first responders and COPS
programs. Does anybody realize that we are closing six fire stations in
New York City? Does anybody realize the burden that is being placed on
police and fire in our local communities who are not being reimbursed
when they elevate the threat level?
We are giving to the veterans $8.7 billion so that the veterans
hospitals like the ones included in my district can remain open and
provide care for those making $30,000 and above. And, yes, having
received the National Urban League's Black Progress and the complexity
of Black Progress, we are trying to cut into the unequal education
system that shows that 52 percent of African Americans are beneath
those in the white community.
It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we have shared sacrifice. I rise
to support the Congressional Black Caucus budget because it provides a
roadmap for America.

fiscal responsibility

Provides $30.5 billion additional dollars for vital programs.
Provides nearly $5 billion towards deficit reduction.
Extends unemployment benefits through June.

offsets to create revenue

Rescinds tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for individuals making more than
$200,00 in gross income.

[[Page H1504]]

Raises further revenue by closing tax loopholes, abusive shelters,
and methods of tax avoidance.
CBC Budget protects the child-care tax credit, the elimination of the
marriage penalty and the 10 percent tax bracket.
Reduces funding for the Ballistic Missile Defense program.

education

CBC Budget adds $18.7 billion in education spending to the budget.
CBC Budget is the only budget being offered that fully funds No Child
Left Behind at the full $9.4 billion.
Provides nearly $2 billion for Pell Garnts to raise grant amount to
$4,500.
Provides $2 billion for School Construction and an additional $2
billion for Job Training, Vocational Education, Adult Education.

homeland security

CBC Budget provides an additional $2.4 billion in Homeland Security
spending.
Provides $900 million for First Responders including the COPS Program
and Citizen Corps.
Provides $566 million for Port Security grants and an additional $250
million for Rail Security.

veterans

CBC Budget provides an additional $8.7 billion in Veterans program
spending.
Provides $1.25 billion to fund Veterans Health Care.
Provides $3.6 billion to fund the Montgomery GI Bill.
Provides $2.5 billion and $25 billion over ten years to help
eliminate the tax on disabled veterans known as concurrent receipts.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from the great State of Florida (Ms. Corrine
Brown), the second vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, President Bush is cutting
funds for veterans' medical care in 2005. CBO has stated that the
amount the President is providing is 257 million below what is needed
to maintain purchasing power at the 2004 levels. The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs has testified that he sought $1.2 billion more than
what the President provided. The President's 2005 budget is a perfect
example of how the Bush administration is failing to treat our veterans
with the respect that they have earned.
It is mind-blowing to me that the Bush administration is going to
make the trillion dollar deficit they created even worse by keeping the
tax cuts it has given to the wealthy.

{time} 1215

Americans deserve to have a President who looks out for the interests
of the Nation as a whole, not just for the elite few.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is not adequate to
meet the needs of 25 million of our Nation's finest individuals.
President Bush needs to start walking the walk if he is going to talk
the talk. Wearing a flight suit and landing on a carrier does not take
care of the needs of former and current members of our Nation's
military.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, we are supported tremendously by the
Hispanic Caucus and certainly the Asian Pacific Caucus, and we are very
pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the distinguished
chairperson of the Black Caucus, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings), for yielding me this time; and I rise to support the
alternative Progressive Caucus and Black Caucus budget that is before
us today.
The Republican majority refuses to finance priorities that are most
important to working families in America. They lack any support for
guaranteed health care, jobs, and a clean environment. The House
Republican budget will severely damage our Nation's health care system
by cutting $2.2 billion over the next 5 years in Medicaid and SCHIP
programs; and in my State of California, 6.5 million people will be
affected by those cuts. Mr. Chairman, 51 million Americans currently
rely on the Medicaid program.
While President Bush has been in office, in fact, we have lost over 3
million jobs. In my district alone, we lost 20,000. This Republican
budget denies an opportunity to provide jobs, 500,000 new jobs in
infrastructure development. And on top of that, they cut back on EPA
funding 7 percent across the board. That means dirty water, dirty air,
and a dirty environment.
This Progressive and Black Caucus budget fully funds Leave No Child
Behind, it doubles Federal funding for Historically Black Colleges and
Hispanic Serving Institutions, it increases Pell grants to college
students, and it increases funding for the COPS program, community
policing grants. The Republican budget ignores the needs of working
families.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Progressive and
Black Caucus alternative budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of the committee.
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, this is an instructive debate, and the
debates that we will have throughout the day and on into the evening
will be instructive because they will point up the stark differences in
the two philosophies which exist here in this House of Representatives
and in this Congress.
I oppose the CBC budget because it increases spending by almost $30
billion in the first year. In the face of this increased spending, it
proposes to reduce the deficit. Now, how does it do that? It does so by
increasing taxes by over $35.5 billion in the first year.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House for 10 years. Previous
to that, in the early 1980s, I was a staffer here for the House of
Representatives. I am proud to have served here in both capacities. It
is okay to have differences in philosophy. That is what makes democracy
count, and it is a good thing. This substitute and this debate today
does point out the difference that I have seen over time.
If we look down through history and if we look at all of the debates
that we will have today, basically, when the Democrats propose a
budget, they propose increased spending and increased taxes. When the
Republicans propose a budget, we try to hold the line on spending, as
this budget does, and to have a lower tax burden on the American
people; and this debate today will point that out very, very
distinctly.
Now, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention, Mr. Chairman, to
a couple of charts. The Republican majority, since fiscal year 1996,
has certainly been generous with those Departments that we have tried
to invest in: a 156 percent increase in education spending, a 109
percent increase in HHS spending, a 48 percent increase in defense
spending. Then, one area that is particularly near and dear to my
heart--the NIH--the National Institutes of Health, during this
Republican Congress, we have doubled the investment in research and
health; and then even after we did that, we increased the investment a
little more. So we have, I think, been very generous. But for some
people in this House, and some people in this town, there is never
enough spending. I submit there is just a point where we have to draw
the line, we are going to try to be reasonable in what we have spent,
and being generous ought to be enough.
We are coming out of recession, Mr. Chairman. At a time when we are
coming out of recession, the last thing we need to do is to do what
this substitute asks, and that is to raise taxes on the American
people. Please vote ``no'' on this substitute.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, a lot of us on the Congressional
Black Caucus and a lot of us who sit on this side of the aisle are used
to being called ``tax and spend liberals.'' It is a mantra that our
friends on the other side throw around a lot. I do not know about the
gentleman from Maryland, but if it makes you a liberal to stand for
full funding for No Child Left Behind, and if it makes you a liberal to
stand up for a revitalized Federal commitment to Medicaid, if it makes
you a liberal to care about the plight of some of our children and some
people who are living in public housing, I know some of us who are
willing to wear that tag.
We hear a lot of talk during this debate about the tough choices that
the Republican majority want to make. I have heard a lot of speakers
come to the well of this House and say, we have

[[Page H1505]]

to be courageous, we have to make these tough spending cuts.
I do not think it is courageous, I say to the gentleman, to cut $5
billion over the next 5 years in income subsistence programs at a time
when so many children are falling back into poverty. I do not think it
is courageous to cut $1 billion from Medicaid when States like my State
and the gentleman's State are struggling to draw down the limited
Federal dollars that are available. I do not think it is courageous to
pare back benefits for veterans. I am so tired, as I know the gentleman
from Maryland is, of what is cold blooded being passed off as
courageous on the floor of this House.
We do need a different set of priorities for America. And all of the
Democratic budgets today, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, the
Blue Dog budget, and the Democratic Caucus budget, have one thing in
common: we make tough fiscal choices. We try to get a handle on this
deficit, and we do it on the firmest foundations of our American
values.
It may very well be that we are vulnerable to the allegation that we
are walking away from tax cuts for some; but some of us on this side of
the aisle are willing to walk away from tax cuts for millionaires,
because I close on this reality: the middle-income Americans in this
country are getting about $217 a year out of this tax cut. The average
person in my district is getting between $25 and $40 a month. This tax
cut that our friends and our adversaries embrace so wholeheartedly
disproportionately favors those who are already powerful.
In conclusion, their budget does not speak to the best of our values.
Our budget does, and I encourage all of our Democrats today to support
all three of these budgets.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, as I said in our opening, I respect the
fact that we are putting our values on the table. I have enormous
respect for that. But let me just at least respond to the gentleman
with regard to what he just said about taxes.
Most provisions that they are talking about, that they talk about as
being tax cuts for the rich or tax increases on the rich, we have to
remember that the bracket they are talking about, 90 percent of small
businesses, which are the job creators in my district, in Manchester,
Iowa, and it is true for all small businesses; small businesses owned
by women, small businesses owned by minorities, small businesses all
together, are paying this top rate, and 80 percent of the increase on
taxes on this top rate would be borne by small businesses. Two-thirds
of the income tax filers in the top income tax bracket have small
business income. If we want to create jobs, why would we tax the job
creators? That is what we are talking about.
And I respect the fact my Democrat colleagues admit they are taxers
and spenders, but do not tax the job creators.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Davis) to respond.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, let me say this to the esteemed
chair of the committee: 36 percent of small business owners in this
country will get virtually no tax relief under this bill. The
overwhelming majority of sole proprietors will only get very small
relief under this bill. We can talk all we want to about the tax cuts.
The reality is that for small business owners, it will have very little
impact.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very
distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I want to applaud our chairman, the gentleman from
Maryland (Chairman Cummings), and also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) for this budget. I join them and my colleagues in strong
opposition to the Republican budget.
On November 6 of last year, we introduced the Health Care Equality
and Accountability Act of 2003 with the Democratic leadership in this
House and the Senate. Today I am here to assure my colleagues that that
was not just a message bill. The CBC budget seeks to meet the needs of
people of color in this country, the health care needs, as well as
other needs, who have been left behind for so long.
Mr. Chairman, giving taxes breaks to the wealthy cannot be a priority
of this country when our people are sick, disabled, and dying and do
not have access to healing and lifesaving care. So our budget
reauthorizes funds to the Office of Minority Health, the Indian Health
Service, Health Professions and other programs that reach out to and
bring wellness to our communities. It supports our teaching and safety
net hospitals and other facilities, and fully funds Medicaid.
This is not increasing taxes; this is stopping corporate giveaways,
giveaways to the wealthy, and investing in the strength of this
country: our people.
Dr. Martin Luther King said, ``Of all forms of inequality, injustice
in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' We agree. And with
the CBC budget, we continue our work to correct that injustice, to
restore health as a right, and to heal America.
We urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Congressional Black
Caucus budget.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, once again the CBC budget makes education
the highest priority. We are requesting an increase of $18.5 billion
for education funding. The CBC understands that at the heart of our
efforts to improve homeland security, at the heart of our efforts for
leadership in the world, at the heart of our efforts to improve the
economy is education. Everybody always seems to forget that.
The CBC is the only alternative budget, for example, with funds for
school construction. This Congress blindly continues to ignore the need
for school construction, school modernization, and school repairs.
This administration proposes to spend billions of dollars to build
schools in Iraq, while it has placed zero in the budget to build public
schools here in America. Nearly every Member of Congress has one
outrageous situation in their district, at least, where there is a
great obvious need for school repair, school modernization, or school
construction; every Member beyond the Congressional Black Caucus
members.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in the Republican position on school
construction. There is an argument that the Federal Government should
not be involved in school construction. On the other hand, there is
some money in this budget for the construction of charter schools.
Charter schools are an exception because, ideologically, this
administration agrees with that.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Congressional Black Caucus
budget because it is the only budget which understands that for
homeland security and for all we want to do in America, education must
come first.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
(Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I too rise to oppose this Republican
budget. My concerns are the tax cuts and the costs that our citizens
will face because of them.
This budget ignores the needs of many of the folks that work in the
petrochemical industry, particularly of Southeast, but of any
manufacturing activity on any waterway in our country.
Cutting taxes and government spending foolishly ignores maintenance
of some of our highways of commerce for many industries, and even our
military. This budget provides half the amount needed to keep our
navigable waterways open.
Recently, one of the channels in my district shoaled up and caused
ships to begin to hit bottom and, therefore, having to lighten their
loads. The ship traffic increased going to the plants. It began to cost
not only the Coast Guard more to protect them, but also the plants
themselves were losing significant profits. One company was paying
$75,000 a day. That, too, could be considered a tax of us not doing our
business in the right way.

[[Page H1506]]

{time} 1230

This budget lowers the Corps of Engineers' budget from 72 percent of
its needs to 50 percent of its needs. And the Corps is now notifying
these companies using those ship channels that they are going to be
facing even additional operating costs if Congress does not provide the
money to keep our water highways open. And that is the same thing that
we will be facing as a military as we, through strategic ports
including the one I just spoke of with the shoaling, does not have the
ability to send the equipment to Iraq for our young men and women who
are fighting diligently there on our behalf.
These are some of the reasons why this needs to be reconsidered. What
logic can there be behind cutting our ability to grow our economy by
cutting our own infrastructure? Let us get our fiscal house in order so
that working families and our Nation's security do not become the
casualty of this budget debate.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to simply thank many people who
worked on this, including certainly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) who has spent a phenomenal amount of time on this along with the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms.
Majette), and others who have just for the last month or so spent
countless hours.
I also want to take the time out to recognize our staff, certainly
Paul Brathwaite, the policy director of the Congressional Black Caucus,
Lee Perselay and Alana Fisher, Michael Goodman and Norman Meyer, and so
many others who gave so much of their time, their blood, their sweat,
and their tears because they want to see a better budget and they want
to see America do better.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, at this juncture, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time. I also thank the chairman of the committee for his
consideration in yielding us time.
The Congressional Black Caucus alternative is committed to making
America more secure. It invests in homeland security, especially for
Federal air marshals, CDC, port security grants. It equips our troops
with such equipment as reinforced trucks to protect from the landmines,
the radio jammers that protect from long distance bombing. It also
protects our veterans. The underlying budget includes an increase in
veterans health, but unfortunately not enough of an increase in
veterans health to maintain present services.
The veterans committee has indicated that $2.5 million is necessary.
This, the underlying budget, does not include $2.5 million. Our budget
does. It adds to security with COPS, local police on the beat, law
enforcement block grants, juvenile crime prevention. It invests in our
future. No Child Left Behind is fully funded in the Congressional Black
Caucus budget.
We provide school construction funds, health initiative and job
creation programs. The economic policy of this administration has
failed and lost 3 million jobs. You cannot blame that on 9-11 because
you have to go back to Harry Truman, past the Korean War, past the
Vietnam War, past the last Persian Gulf War to find an administration
with a 3 million job loss.
This budget invests in job creation. I will admit we have to make
some tough choices. Those with incomes over $200,000 may not enjoy a
continuation of the tax cuts under the original budget. But those are
the tough choices made. And we have priorities. Do we fund missile
defense, or do we fund port security grants? These are the tough
choices that are made.
After we have made those tough choices, we look up and have a deficit
$70 billion lower compared to the Republican budget, $8 billion
reduction in interest payments alone.
This is a fiscally responsible budget. It invests in the appropriate
values of the Nation, and I would hope that it would be the pleasure of
the House to adopt the CBC budget.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings)
has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 3\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I too want to thank the chairman of the committee for yielding and
giving us the additional 10 minutes. We really appreciate it.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. I have no further speakers other than myself and I belive
I have the right to close and so I am prepared to close when the
gentleman is.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time, I am closing now.
Mr. Chairman, again, we thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said it and the members of
Congressional Black Caucus said it quite well. What we are addressing
here and the reason we called our budget ``Investing in America While
Ensuring Fiscal Responsibility'' is that we believe very strongly in a
balanced budget. We believe very strongly that we must address the
issues of terrorism. It is very significant and very important to us.
But at the same time, we do believe that we need to take care of
Americans right here at home.
Many of our members in the Congressional Black Caucus look at our
schools, and we are extremely concerned. That is why we spent a
phenomenal amount of time and put a lot of emphasis on No Child Left
Behind to make sure that it is properly funded, because we want those
children to have a future.
I have often said that our children are the living messages we send
to a future we will never see. We want to make sure they go into that
future well educated, well prepared, and well ready to take on the many
opportunities that will be before them. We also make sure that we
secure funding for initiatives such as the COPS program because we
realize that our neighborhoods have to be safe in order for people to
live the best lives that they can.
Again, we look at the budget from the standpoint of this, and it is a
very simple thing, Mr. Chairman. It simply is that we have one life to
live. This is no dress rehearsal, and this so happens to be that life.
It is our belief that the balance that we have provided in our budget
is a much better alternative than the budget that the other side has
presented and the President's.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for the Congressional Black
Caucus' ``Investing in America While Ensuring Fiscal Responsibility''
budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, first, as I did when I opened, I do very much respect
the job that has been done by the Congressional Black Caucus in
presenting a budget. It is very difficult to do that. I know that just
because I have the responsibility of putting together the majority
budget, and it is not an easy task. And so I appreciate the job that
was done. We simply disagree, and we do so very respectfully.
The title of the budget is ``Investing in America,'' and we just
happen to believe that the best investors in America are Americans, not
the government. We believe that individuals and families make much
better decisions about spending their money than the government can for
them. And so the reason why we believe that increasing taxes would be
wrong or increasing spending at this time and the dramatic way that you
go about that in your budget would just not be the right recipe at this
time or the right blueprint as we move forward.
A couple of things that I just want to point out to my colleagues who
are coming over and getting ready to vote.
The first is that the substitute offered by the Congressional Black
Caucus raises taxes. It raises $35 billion of

[[Page H1507]]

taxes in 2005 alone and $192 billion over 5 years. And the way that it
raises taxes is on small business; and that is, in my estimation, the
wrong recipe at the wrong time when our economy is just poised to begin
job creation. Ninety percent of small businesses pay taxes at the rate
that they want to increase. More than 80 percent of the increase in
taxes on the top rate will be borne by small business. Two-thirds of
the income tax filers in the top income tax rate have small business
income.
Small businesses represent more than 99 percent of all the employers
in this country. And at the exact moment when the economy is poised
after 6 months of the largest growth in 20 years, we cannot allow a tax
increase to occur on those small businesses because they are the risk-
takers, the entrepreneurs, the innovators in America. It is not
government.
The innovation is happening outside of Washington, D.C., not inside
the Beltway. And we need to encourage that.
I also just want to mention that tax cuts are not to blame for
everything. We have heard a lot of people come to the floor today
claiming that tax cuts cause the deficit, that tax cuts are the bane of
our existence. Let me remind you that tax cuts, as you can see here,
represent this white area right above here. This white line. And tax
cuts would not have gotten us into deficit. It is spending. It is
spending. It is spending that gets us into deficit as well as a
downturn in the economy.
So two things that we cannot do, kill the economy or continue
increases in spending. Second thing is that I believe the substitute
spends too much money. Let me tell you what I mean by that.
Even before you ask us to adopt your budget, look at the large
increases of spending that we are talking about. So before anyone comes
to the floor yet again today and says somehow that we are cutting this,
we are cutting that, we are gouging this, we are gouging that, my
goodness we are spending a lot of money out here. In fact, if you want
to look at this a little different way, this is the bar chart way. In
the last 3 years total growth has been 6 percent. That is enough. We
have enough spending. We do not need new taxes.
Please reject, respectfully, the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this resolution
and in support of the Democratic and Congressional Black Caucus
alternatives.
You would think that after 3 years of Bush budgets and Bush tax cuts,
there is enough evidence to suggest that the people who benefited from
3 years of tax cuts are not producing jobs for the rest of working
America. The sponsors of the Republican budget resolution look at
economic growth and ignore stagnant job creation. That is why they try
to convince working Americans to stay the course.
In the last 3 years, similar budgets have cost the economy 3 million
jobs. Unemployment in my State of Michigan stands at 6.6 percent, the
second largest number of unemployed citizens in the country.
Unemployment among African-Americans stands at 9.8 percent.
Only 21,000 jobs were created in February, and not one was created by
the private sector. If the economy continues to perform at last month's
rate, it would take 9 years to recover all the jobs lost in the last
three Bush budgets. This record would earn him the distinction of
having the worst job creation record since the Great Depression.
The Republican budget resolution does nothing about deficits. It
produces deficits each and every year of the life of the resolution and
beyond. The Republican budget provides no blueprint to bring the budget
into balance, and this document refuses to show how large the deficits
will be in the out years beyond 2009.
Three years ago, the President told us we would see a $5.6 trillion
surplus. He used that projection to justify $1.3 trillion in tax cuts.
Now the surpluses have disappeared and if you project out 10 years to
2014, the deficits generated are estimated at $5.5 trillion. That is a
swing of $10 trillion in tax cuts. Now the surplus have disappeared and
if you project out 10 years to 2014, the deficits generated are
estimated at $5.5 trillion. That is a swing of $10 trillion. If tax
cuts are appropriate when we have surpluses, why are they appropriate
when we have record deficits?
Three years ago, the Republican majority talked about putting Social
Security and Medicare funds in a lock box. Now they are planning to
spend the entire trillion dollar Social Security surplus from 2005 to
2009. The price we are paying for the Bush tax cuts is ultimately the
dismantling of Social Security and Medicare as we know it.
With respect to education, the Republican budget underfunds No Child
Left Behind by $8.8 billion, continuing the pattern of underfunding
education programs. With 3.8 million women looking for work, the
Republican budget does nothing to create good paying jobs or improve
access to health care.
That is the result of 3 years of Bush budgets, and we are promised
more of the same.
If the Republicans were serious about the deficit, they would come up
with a new economic strategy. This Republican budget promises more of
the same. If the administration and its allies in Congress were serious
about the deficit, they would follow the 1990 PAYGO model to make it
impossible to enact any revenue, mandatory spending, or tax expenditure
legislation unless there was an offset. But PAYGO in this Congress
would apply only to spending, not to revenues. That is not a serious
attempt to cut the deficit.
If you are satisfied with the job creation record of the last 3
years, then vote for the Republican budget resolution. If you are
satisfied with the course of the economy, then vote for the Republican
budget resolution. If you are satisfied with the lack of wage growth,
then vote for the Republican budget resolution. If you want more of the
same, then vote for this Republican budget resolution.
But if you want economic growth with job growth, look to the
Democratic and CBC alternatives. If you really want to help school
districts meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind, vote for the
Democratic and CBC alternatives. If you want to protect Social Security
and Medicare, vote for the Democratic and CBC alternatives. If you want
to do something for veterans health care, vote for the Democratic and
CBC alternatives.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the
substitute amendment offered by Mr. Scott. This amendment would refocus
our budget priorities back to where they should be during this time of
war--to defeating terror and making America safer. This resolution
would provide an additional $2\1/2\ billion for Homeland Security, with
close to $1 billion of that amount going directly to our first
responders--the fire, police, medical, and other emergency personnel
who keep our neighborhoods safe. We've talked a lot over the past
couple years about the new Homeland Security Department here in
Washington. We need to remember that, in case of another attack on
America, Homeland Security employees will not be the ones running into
danger to save lives. Just as on September 11, it will be local
paramedics, firefighters, police, and others. They deserve--we all
deserve--to have Congress provide the resources to make sure they are
prepared to protect us.
This substitute also includes increased funding for veterans and for
our troops in the field. At a time when American forces are at war,
Congress should be focused on providing our soldiers with what they
need, rather than focusing attention on what wealthy executives need.
This substitute budget closes tax loopholes and uses those funds to pay
for body armor for soldiers and armor for their vehicles. I cannot be
prouder than to vote for an amendment that would both punish tax
dodgers and protect our soldiers.
But we need to focus not only on our current soldiers but also our
former soldiers. I am proud to be supporting a substitute budget that
provides adequate resources for veterans' health care. As we ask the
men and women of the armed services to risk their lives for us, we need
to show them that we will be there for them as they deal, in many cases
for the rest of their lives, with injuries sustained in defense of the
United States. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute budget,
to make America's budget priorities match America's wartime needs.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.
Con. Res. 393, the Republican budget resolution. There are so many
things wrong with this budget resolution and the President's budget
request that I would not know how to even begin listing all of them.
But I am especially concerned about how this budget hurts our Nation's
low-income minority communities.
Instead of providing adequate funding for job creation, healthcare,
education, and housing, House Republicans have instead ignored or cut
funding in these areas to finance the President's ill-conceived tax
cuts to the wealthy.
At a time when well over 3 million African-Americans and Hispanics
are out of work, the President's budget proposes cuts to the Small
Business Administration by $78 million, despite SBA's proven
effectiveness in helping minority-owned businesses grow.
On education, the President's budget is devastating to programs
designed to help minority students gain an even footing. It freezes
funding for bilingual education, cuts funding for Head Start, and
eliminates Even Start and dropout prevention programs. Only 17 percent

[[Page H1508]]

of African-Americans and 11 percent of Latinos have their college
degrees, but this administration has frozen funding for Pell grants and
cut funding for Perkins loans by nearly $100 million.
The misled priorities do not stop there. According to top level
officials of the administration, the President's budget underfunds the
Department of Veterans Affairs by $1.2 billion and falls short on
veterans' health benefits. Furthermore, for nonveterans, the budget
does nothing to address skyrocketing healthcare costs of low-income
individuals.
Recklessly slashing or neglecting non-Homeland Security domestic
discretionary spending, which comprises a mere one-sixth of the total
budget, will not make a dent in the astronomical budget deficit that
Republicans have proposed. That is why I support the substitute offered
by the Congressional Black Caucus, which will not only restore funding
to veterans and other domestic priorities, but also including funding
for essential priorities such as local law enforcement, schools and job
training.
Mr. Chairman, we in this body have an obligation to represent all
Americans, not just the wealthiest ones. For that reason, I urge my
colleagues to join me in opposing the Republican budget and supporting
the CBC substitute, and if that fails, supporting the Democratic
substitute, which is still vastly superior to the Republican
resolution.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate on this amendment in
the nature of a substitute 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 119,
noes 302, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 88]

AYES--119

Ackerman
Baca
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--302

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

NOT VOTING--12

Abercrombie
Bonner
DeMint
Hoeffel
Linder
Lucas (KY)
McInnis
Pence
Price (NC)
Quinn
Tauzin
Wexler

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1310

Messrs. BURR, GALLEGLY, GUTKNECHT, McCOTTER, RAMSTAD, and GONZALEZ
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island 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 against:
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting off
the Hill and was not able to vote on the Cummings amendment, rollcall
No. 88. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). It is now in order to
consider amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 108-446.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Mr. Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill), 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:

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 is hereby
established and that the appropriate levels for fiscal years
2006 through 2014 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.
Sec. 202. Submission of report on defense savings.

[[Page H1509]]

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND ENFORCEMENT

Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

Sec. 301. Reserve fund for the costs of military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Sec. 302. Reserve fund for health insurance for the uninsured.
Sec. 303. Adjustment for surface transportation.
Sec. 304. Reserve fund for permanent extension of tax cuts.
Sec. 305. Reserve fund for funding local law enforcement programs.
Sec. 306. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Military Survivors' Benefit
Plan.

Subtitle B--Enforcement

Sec. 311. Point of order against certain legislation reducing the
surplus or increasing the deficit after fiscal year 2009.
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.
Sec. 319. Restrictions on advance appropriations.

Subtitle C--Increase in Debt Limit Contingent Upon Plan To Restore
Balanced Budget

Sec. 321. Increase in debt limit.
Sec. 322. Review of budget outlook.

TITLE IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS AND SENSE OF HOUSE PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Sense of Congress regarding budget enforcement.
Sec. 402. Sense of Congress on tax reform.
Sec. 403. Sense of the house on spending accountability.
Sec. 404. Sense of Congress regarding previously enacted tax
legislation.
Sec. 405. Sense of Congress regarding a trigger mechanism for costs of
prescription drug legislation.
Sec. 406. Sense of Congress regarding responsible funding for
additional military end strength.
Sec. 407. Sense of the House regarding funding for the manufacturing
extension partnership.
Sec. 408. Sense of the House regarding the conservation spending
category.
Sec. 409. Sense of the House regarding the ouachita-black navigation
project.
Sec. 410. Sense of the House on tax simplification and tax fairness.
Sec. 411. Sense of the House on LIHEAP.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2014:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2005: $1,466,774,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,643,201,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,776,224,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,867,910,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,976,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,095,382,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,293,633,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,472,923,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,605,505,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,747,823,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be reduced are as follows:
Fiscal year 2005: $10,360,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $10,980,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: -$21,280,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: -$22,120,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: -$23,840,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: -$31,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$12,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $12,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $14,000,000,000.
(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 2005: $1,962,161,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,064,882,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,190,409,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,294,184,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,424,272,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,521,850,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,645,018,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,721,044,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,846,992,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,972,679,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2005: $1,981,499,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,075,659,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,166,368,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,259,452,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,386,165,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,497,928,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,626,458,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,695,976,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,827,312,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,952,585,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2005: -$514,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: -$432,458,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: -$390,144,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: -$391,542,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: -$409,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: -$402,546,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$332,825,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: -$223,053,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$221,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$204,762,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2005: $8,048,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $8,605,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $9,116,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,629,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,162,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,691,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $11,150,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,514,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $11,872,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $12,215,400,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2005: $4,737,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $4,990,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $5,184,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $5,365,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,550,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $5,714,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $5,796,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $5,758,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $5,712,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $5,643,900,000,000.

SEC. 102. HOMELAND SECURITY.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal year
2005 for Homeland Security are as follows:
(1) New budget authority, $34,102,000,000.
(2) Outlays, $29,997,000,000.

SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2005 through 2014 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $422,157,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $449,442,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $444,807,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $441,451,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $466,423,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $448,337,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $488,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $468,010,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $511,074,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $489,757,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $523,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $511,202,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $537,177,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $533,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $550,124,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $539,798,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $563,075,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $557,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $577,498,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $571,363,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $26,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $27,836,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,066,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $27,990,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,768,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,540,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $28,298,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,162,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $28,888,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $29,505,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,850,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $30,119,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,124,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $30,752,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,654,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $31,438,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,216,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $23,418,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,975,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $23,557,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,263,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $23,696,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,352,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $23,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $23,980,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,525,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:

[[Page H1510]]

(A) New budget authority, $24,484,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,988,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $25,005,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,357,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $25,531,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,813,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $26,084,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,340,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $26,641,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,878,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $2,344,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $707,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $2,189,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,214,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $2,305,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $373,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $1,903,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $1,823,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $563,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $1,891,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $1,963,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $917,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $2,040,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $875,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $2,112,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,296,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $31,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,061,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $31,758,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $32,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,357,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $33,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,541,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $33,007,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $33,755,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,852,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $34,502,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $35,242,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,664,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $36,046,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,149,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $36,945,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,008,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $22,066,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,184,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $24,129,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,981,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $25,066,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,941,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $25,126,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,061,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $25,985,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $25,980,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,164,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $25,963,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,142,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $25,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,078,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $25,888,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,038,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $25,854,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,031,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,677,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $10,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,749,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $9,944,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $10,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,485,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,878,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,106,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $10,084,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $10,191,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,317,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $10,375,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,631,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $10,547,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,659,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $10,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,693,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $71,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $73,370,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $75,962,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,350,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $75,620,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,450,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $78,843,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,841,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $72,791,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $73,594,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,265,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $74,432,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,863,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $75,290,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $76,188,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,165,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $14,999,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $14,950,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,594,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $15,183,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,462,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $15,433,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $15,872,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,749,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $16,189,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,247,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $16,517,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,978,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $16,846,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,159,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $17,196,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,450,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $17,542,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,750,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $93,036,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $94,241,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,398,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $94,993,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,109,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $91,712,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,285,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $96,342,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,213,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $98,169,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $100,198,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,961,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $102,177,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,088,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $104,292,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $106,398,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,176,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $251,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $249,821,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $257,720,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $258,058,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $271,476,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $271,154,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $289,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $289,865,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $312,044,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $309,527,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $332,207,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $332,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $356,257,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $355,680,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $382,311,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $381,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $410,737,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $409,547,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $441,609,000,000.

[[Page H1511]]

(B) Outlays, $440,241,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $287,855,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $288,862,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $322,663,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $322,245,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $362,525,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $362,784,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $387,258,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $387,295,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $414,018,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $413,870,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $442,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $442,496,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $478,799,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $478,801,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $504,733,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $504,241,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $550,143,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $550,427,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $595,866,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $595,863,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $338,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,528,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $336,305,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $340,057,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $341,053,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $343,778,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $352,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $354,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $363,266,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $364,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $375,408,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $377,160,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $392,172,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $392,862,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $382,017,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $382,492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $396,417,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $396,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $407,234,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $408,043,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,196,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $16,801,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,740,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,139,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,505,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,528,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,860,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,863,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $24,121,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,127,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $28,007,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,009,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $30,993,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,995,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $33,739,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,740,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $36,603,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,604,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $71,432,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,456,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $69,415,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,521,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $67,554,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,937,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $68,680,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $73,552,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,097,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $75,138,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,667,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $79,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $76,587,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $76,114,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $81,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,732,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $83,275,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,822,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $43,835,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $39,933,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $40,601,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $38,497,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,501,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $42,172,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,444,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $43,335,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,022,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $44,531,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,174,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $45,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $47,052,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $48,375,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,939,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $17,324,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,962,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $17,549,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,498,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $17,711,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $18,847,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $17,276,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,189,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $17,852,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,634,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $18,464,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,230,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $19,088,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,908,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $19,710,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,262,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $20,359,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,852,000,000.
(18) Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $270,012,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $270,012,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $316,698,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $316,698,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $359,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $359,828,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $390,726,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $390,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $416,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $416,367,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $439,593,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $439,593,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $459,207,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $459,207,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $475,986,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $475,986,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $488,534,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $488,534,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $502,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $502,137,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $49,853,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,703,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $302,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$287,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,813,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$301,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $699,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$316,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$324,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$324,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$334,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$334,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$342,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$351,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$351,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$357,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$357,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,505,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,505,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$59,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$61,787,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$61,937,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$64,532,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$62,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$61,150,000,000.

[[Page H1512]]

(B) Outlays, -$62,745,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$63,552,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$65,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$66,135,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$67,820,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$68,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$70,355,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$71,406,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$72,881,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$73,765,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$75,135,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION.

(a) Reconciliation Instruction.--Not later than October 1,
2004, the House Committee on Ways and Means shall report a
reconciliation bill that consists of changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues by not more
than $10,360,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, by not more than
$45,900,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through
2009, and by not more than $51,740,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2005 through 2014.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
in complying with the instructions set forth in subsection
(a), the Committee on Ways and Means should provide middle-
class tax relief by extending the provisions regarding the
child tax credit, marriage penalty, and ten percent income
tax bracket expiring in 2004 for one year, provide permanent
estate tax relief for small business and family farms and
ranches, and defer a portion of tax reductions for taxpayers
within incomes over $200,000 a year until the budget is
balanced.
(c) Additional Reconciliation Instruction.--Not later than
October 1, 2004, the House Committee on Ways and Means shall
report a reconciliation bill that consists of changes in laws
within its jurisdiction that is revenue neutral by--
(1) raising revenues by closing corporate tax loopholes,
improving tax compliance, and making other tax changes; and
(2) utilizing these savings to provide additional tax
relief to middle-class families and small businesses or make
other tax changes to promote economic growth.

SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON DEFENSE SAVINGS.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND ENFORCEMENT

Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR THE COSTS OF MILITARY OPERATIONS
IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

(a) Reserve Fund.--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 and Afghanistan, then the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget shall make the appropriate revisions to the
allocations and other levels in this resolution by an amount
not exceed $50,000,000,000 in new budget authority and the
resulting outlays.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should submit a supplemental request for
funding necessary for military and civilian operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the calendar year not
later than June 30, 2004.

SEC. 302. RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE
UNINSURED.

If the Committee on Finance or the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate reports a bill
or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto is offered or a
conference report thereon is submitted, that provides health
insurance or expands access to care for the uninsured
(including a measure providing for tax deductions for the
purchase of health insurance or other measures), increases
access to health insurance through lowering costs, and does
not increase the costs of current health insurance coverage,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise
allocations of new budget authority and outlays, the revenue
aggregates, and other appropriate aggregates to reflect such
legislation, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit for fiscal year 2005 and for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

SEC. 303. ADJUSTMENT FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

(a) In General.--If the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House 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
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 250(c)(4) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in
excess of--
(1) for fiscal year 2005, $41,772,000,000; or
(2) for fiscal years 2005 through 2009, $207,293,000,000;

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 2005
and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to the
extent such excess is offset by a reduction in mandatory
outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or an increase in
receipts appropriately made available to such Fund for the
applicable fiscal year caused by such legislation or
previously enacted legislation.
(b) Adjustment for Outlays.--(1) For fiscal year 2005, 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
$40,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, for programs, projects,
and activities within the highway and transit categories as
defined in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 250(c)(4) 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 and appropriate aggregates 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 in 2005 pursuant to subsection (a).
(2) For fiscal year 2006, 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 $40,621,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, for programs,
projects, and activities within the highway and transit
categories as defined in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section
250(c)(4) 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 and appropriate aggregates
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 in 2006 pursuant to subsection (a).

SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TAX CUTS.

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, and if the chairman on
the Committee on the Budget certifies that the enactment of
such legislation would not cause or increase a unified budget
deficit in 2011 or any succeeding fiscal year covered by this
resolution, then the chairman on the Committee on the Budget
shall revise allocations to accommodate such legislation and
make other necessary adjustments.

SEC. 305. RESERVE FUND FOR FUNDING LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
PROGRAMS.

In the House, if the House passes legislation reported by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce providing for additional
spectrum auctions, the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may revise allocations for legislation providing
increased funding for local law enforcement assistance by an
amount that does not exceed the estimated increase in
receipts from the spectrum auction legislation reported by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

SEC. 306. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MILITARY
SURVIVORS' BENEFIT PLAN.

Subtitle B--Enforcement

SEC. 311. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CERTAIN LEGISLATION REDUCING
THE SURPLUS OR INCREASING THE DEFICIT AFTER
FISCAL YEAR 2009.

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 2009 through fiscal year 2014 that would decrease
the surplus or increase the deficit for any fiscal year.

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

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--

[[Page H1513]]

(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.

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--
(1) with respect to fiscal year 2005, for the discretionary
category: $____ in new budget authority and $____ in outlays;
(2) with respect to fiscal year 2006, for the discretionary
category: $____ in new budget authority and $____ in outlays;
(3) with respect to fiscal year 2007, for the discretionary
category: $____ in new budget authority and $____ in outlays;
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 201 and 202.
(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 military operations in Iraq
as provided in section 301; and
(C) an amount provided for transportation under section
303.
(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 2005.
(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 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

[[Page H1514]]

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 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
(C) any legislation for which an adjustment is made under
section 301.
(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,
2009.

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.

SEC. 319. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

Subtitle C--Increase in Debt Limit Contingent Upon Plan To Restore
Balanced Budget.

SEC. 321. INCREASE IN DEBT LIMIT.

(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 June 30, 2004,
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 322
that the unified budget will be in balance by fiscal year
2012; or
(B) the President has submitted to Congress a declaration
that such increase is necessary to finance costs of a
military conflict or address an imminent threat to national
security, but which shall not exceed the amount of the
adjustment under section 301 for the costs of military
operations in Iraq.

SEC. 322. 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 2005
through 2014), the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office projects that the unified budget of the United States
for fiscal year 2012 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 IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS AND SENSE OF HOUSE 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 3 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 5 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.

SEC. 403. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY.

[[Page H1515]]

Program Assessment Rating Tool which is designed to improve
agency performance);

in order to enact legislation to eliminate waste, fraud, and
abuse to ensure the efficient use of taxpayer dollars;
(2) all Federal programs should be periodically
reauthorized and funding for unauthorized programs should be
level-funded in fiscal year 2005 unless there is a compelling
justification;
(3) committees should submit written justifications for
earmarks and should consider not funding those most
egregiously inconsistent with national policy;
(4) the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution should be
vigorously enforced; and
(5) Congress should make every effort to offset nonwar-
related supplemental appropriations.

SEC. 404. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PREVIOUSLY ENACTED TAX
LEGISLATION.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2004 provided that revenues would be
$1.883 trillion in fiscal year 2004 after enactment of the
tax cut legislation provided for in the resolution.
(2) Many advocates of the tax cut argued that revenues
would actually be much higher because the tax cuts would
stimulate growth and produce a surge in revenues.
(3) The Congressional Budget Office estimated in ``An
Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal
Year 2005'' that revenues would be $1.782 trillion in 2004,
$100 billion lower than promised when the tax cuts were
enacted.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress should enact legislation to review the impact
of enacted tax cut legislation on total revenues; and
(2) such legislation should establish revenue targets equal
to total revenue levels established in the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004; and that if
total revenues fall below the targets, the President would be
required to propose legislation to offset the revenue
shortfall through spending reductions or increased revenues
or explicitly authorize an increase in the debt limit by the
amount of the shortfall and that Congress would be required
to consider vote on the President's proposal under an
expedited process.

SEC. 405. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING A TRIGGER MECHANISM FOR
COSTS OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG LEGISLATION.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The cost of the new Medicare law, estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office before its passage to be
$395,000,000,000 over ten years, has now been estimated by
the Department of Health and Human Services to be
$534,000,000,000 over ten years.
(2) Without taking steps to control the cost of
prescription drugs, the Medicare law will become an
unsustainable burden on the the Government and on taxpayers.
In addition, rising drug costs could end up shifting
additional cost burdens to Medicare beneficiaries.
(3) The Congressional Budget Office ans the Department of
Human Services have estimated that the reforms enacted as
part of Medicare legislation increasing participation of
private plans in the Medicare program would increase the
costs of the Medicare program.
(4) Prescription drug costs increased 15.3 percent in 2003.
These rising costs are one of the primary drivers of
increasing health care costs, which ran at 9.3 percent last
year.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) legislation should be adopted which would establish a
trigger mechanism to reduce costs of Medicare prescription
drug legislation through negotiation of prescription drug
prices by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and
other changes to Medicare prescription drug legislation
recommended by the President;
(2) this legislation would mandate that at any point when
the expected ten-year expenditures for fiscal years 2004
through 2013 for Public Law 108-173 exceed the Congressional
Budget Office estimate for this legislation, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services would be required to immediately
enter into direct negotiations with pharmaceutical
manufacturers for competitive drug prices; and
(3) this legislation would further provide that if the
Secretary is unable to negotiate reductions in prescription
drug prices sufficient to reduce estimated ten year
expenditures for Public Law 108-174 by the amount these costs
exceed the Congressional Budget Office estimates for this
legislation when it was enacted the President would be
required to submit to Congress legislative changes to
eliminate this excess and Congress would be required to
consider this proposal under an expedited process.

SEC. 406. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING RESPONSIBLE FUNDING FOR
ADDITIONAL MILITARY END STRENGTH.

It is the sense of the Congress that the aggregates and
function levels in this resolution for major functional
category 050 (Defense), excluding any supplemental
appropriations under section 301 for military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan, assumes funding in the Military
Personnel accounts for the costs of approximately 10,000
additional military personnel exceeding the normal strength
levels either to provide forces deployed for military
operations or to sustain the readiness levels of deploying
units.

SEC. 407. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which is
jointly funded by Federal and State Governments and private
entities, improves small manufacturers' competitiveness,
creates jobs, increases economic activity, and generates a
$4-to-$1 return on investment to the Treasury by aiding small
businesses traditionally underserved by the business
consulting market;
(2) in a January 2004 Department of Commerce report titled
Manufacturing In America: A Comprehensive Strategy to Address
the Challenges to U.S. Manufacturers, the Administration
stated that ``...the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) has provided many small U.S. manufacturers with useful
business services to become more competitive and
productive,'' a conclusion in which the Congress concurs;
(3) the Congress appropriated $106 million for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership for 2003 but only $39
million for 2004, and the President's 2005 budget maintains
this drastically reduced funding level, undermining the
ability of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership to fulfill
its mission of helping small businesses to adopt advanced
manufacturing technologies and practices that will help them
compete in a global market; and
(4) Federal funding for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership should be restored to its pre-2004 level,
adjusted for inflation.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) this resolution provides a total of $110 million for
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership for 2005, $71 million
more than the President's request, and supports adequate
funding throughout the period covered by this resolution; and
(2) this funding restores the viability of the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership and provides the
necessary resources for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership to continue helping small manufacturers reach
their optimal performance and create jobs.

SEC. 408. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE CONSERVATION
SPENDING CATEGORY.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the 2001 Interior Appropriations Act (Public Law 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; and
(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.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
the any law establishing new caps on discretionary spending
should include a separate conservation spending category and
that any caps on conservation spending for fiscal years 2005
or 2006 should be set at the levels established in Public Law
106-291.

SEC. 409. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE OUACHITA-BLACK
NAVIGATION PROJECT.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the Ouachita-Black Navigation Project was authorized by
the River and Harbor Act of 1950 and modified by the River
and Harbor Act of 1960; and
(2) a 382-mile navigation channel on the Red, Black and
Ouachita Rivers was created requiring annual dredging to
ensure the rivers' channel depth is maintained at the nine
feet needed for commercial use; and
(3) if adequate annual funding is not provided to the Corps
of Engineers and others, the project will not be able to
function, undercutting commerce and revitalization in the
area served by the project, and resulting in the loss of
hundreds of jobs that are dependent on barge traffic.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
full funding should be provided for the Ouachita-Black
Navigation Project in 2005 and beyond, notwithstanding the
ton-mileage of barge traffic using the project.

SEC. 410. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON TAX SIMPLIFICATION AND TAX
FAIRNESS.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) the current tax system has been made increasingly
complex and unfair to the detriment of the vast majority of
working Americans;
(2) constant change and manipulation of the tax code have
adverse effects on taxpayers' understanding and trust in the
Nation's tax laws;
(3) these increases in complexity and clarity have made
compliance more challenging for the average taxpayer and
small business owner, especially the self-employed; and
(4) this budget resolution contemplates a comprehensive
review of recent changes in the tax code, leading to future
action to reduce the tax burden and compliance burden for
middle-income workers and their families in the context of
tax reform that makes the Federal tax code simpler and fairer
to all taxpayers.

SEC. 411. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON LIHEAP.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the United States is in the grip of pervasively higher
home energy prices;

[[Page H1516]]

(2) high natural gas, heating oil, and propane prices are,
in general, having an effect that is rippling through the
United States economy and are, in particular, impacting home
energy bills;
(3) while persons in many sectors can adapt to natural gas,
heating oil, and propane price increases, persons in some
sectors simply cannot;
(4) elderly and disabled citizens who are living on fixed
incomes, the working poor, and other low-income individuals
face hardships wrought by high home energy prices;
(5) the energy burden for persons among the working poor
often exceeds percent of those persons' incomes under normal
conditions;
(6) under current circumstances, home energy prices are
unnaturally high, and these are not normal circumstances;
(7) while critically important and encouraged, State energy
assistance and charitable assistance funds have been
overwhelmed by the crisis caused by the high home energy
prices;
(8) the Federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(referred to in this section as ``LIHEAP'') and the companion
weatherization assistance program (referred to in this
section as ``WAP''), are the Federal Government's primary
means to assist eligible low-income individuals in the United
States to shoulder the burdens caused by their home cooling
and heating needs;
(9) in 2003, LIHEAP reached only 15 percent of the persons
in the United States who were eligible for assistance under
the program;
(10) since LIHEAP's inception, its inflation-adjusted
buying power has eroded by 58 percent; and
(11) current Federal funding for LIHEAP is not sufficient
to meet the cooling and heating needs of low-income families.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
the levels in this concurrent resolution assume--
(1) an authorization of $3,400,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2005 and 2006 to carry out the LIHEAP program;
(2) an authorization of $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2005
and $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 to carry out the WAP
program;
(3) appropriations, for these programs, of sufficient
additional funds to realistically address the cooling and
heating needs of low-income families;
(4) advance appropriations of the necessary funds to ensure
the smooth operation of the programs during times of peak
demand.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The Blue Dog budget that we offer at this time is designed and based
entirely on the simple philosophy that when you find yourself in a
hole, the first rule is to quit digging.
Our country has a massive problem with fiscal deficits today. Our
budget is built around the simple concept of pay as you go. If we want
to pass a tax cut, cut spending to make room for it or raise some other
tax to keep it from going to the bottom-line deficit.
In other words, we are suggesting taking the shovels away from
Congress and the President. Our plan would cut the deficit in half in 2
years and put the budget on a path back towards budget surpluses in
2012 and balance in 2010. Our budget has $210 billion less debt over
the next 5 years than the resolution reported by the Committee on the
Budget.
The Blue Dog budget includes the pay-as-you-go rules that were
adopted by a bipartisan vote in the Senate, as well as enforceable
limits on discretionary spending. The Blue Dog budget adopts the tough
spending limits by adopting the President's overall spending levels,
but reallocates funding to put more resources into veterans, education,
health care, and other priorities, and keeps from reopening the farm
bill and also providing assistance to small businesses, manufacturers,
firemen and policemen, the first responders in the war on terrorism.
We strongly support the President in the war on terrorism. Our budget
provides the President with everything he requested for defense and
homeland security and sets aside a reserve fund for additional funding
for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we did last
year.
Our budget provides tax relief for all taxpayers by extending the
expansion of the 10 percent bracket, the marriage penalty relief, and
the child tax credit. We also provide for immediate and permanent
estate tax relief for small businesses, family farms and ranches. We
offset the costs of extending tax relief, pay as you go, for middle-
income families and pay for the cost of military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan by asking those with incomes over $200,000 to have a little
less of a tax cut until the costs of the war are paid and the budget is
put back on a path towards balance.
Most importantly, our budget would reduce the debt tax that all
American families, as well as our children and grandchildren would have
to pay, in order to pay interest on our national debt.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the title of this budget is When
You Are in a Hole, Stop Digging. Yes, they need to stop digging, stop
digging in the pockets of families and small businesses and farmers and
ranchers. They are digging and digging for more and more and more
taxes. More taxes from farmers, more taxes from ranchers, more taxes
from families, more taxes from married couples, more taxes that kill
jobs and make it impossible for our economy to get back on its feet.
When you are in a hole, stopping digging in the American people's
pockets and start reducing spending around Washington which is
wasteful.
This budget presented today raises taxes at a time when small
businesses can least afford it. Ninety percent of small businesses pay
at the individual rates. More than 80 percent in the increase in taxes
for the top rate that they speak of will be borne by small businesses.
Small businesses represent more than 99 percent of all employers, and
they employ more than half of the private workforce.
When you are in a hole, stop digging in my pockets and pass the
Republican plan that does not raise taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, only 2 percent of
the small businesses are affected by the tremendous rhetoric that the
gentleman from Iowa just put forward on taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
As we heard the gentleman from Texas say, the Blue Dog budget is not
just a responsible budget, it is an honest budget. It matches the
President's overall spending levels, it extends tax relief for our
middle-class families, and most important, it pays for that tax relief.
The Blue Dog budget includes the strongest budget enforcement
mechanisms of any budget being debated here today. It extends the pay-
as-you-go rules to both the spending side and the revenue side. To be
clear, neither the Republican budget nor their alternative being
offered by the Republican Study Committee does that.
Republicans rejected the PAYGO amendment in the Committee on the
Budget on a strict party-line vote. They rejected the amendment in the
Committee on Rules on a strict party-line vote, and they have refused
to put the PAYGO provisions in their budget.
We expect our constituents to pay their bills, and I do not know why
some folks here in Congress think we should be exempt from that
standard. Our constituents did not send us here to play games with
their tax dollars and play games with the budget. They sent us here to
balance the budget.
Vote for the Blue Dog budget. It is strong on enforcement and
responsible on spending and revenue.

{time} 1315

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a member of the committee.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, there are opportunities sometimes
provided for bipartisanship in this House and one looks for them
because frankly they do not happen all that often it seems like. And so
I looked at the Blue Dog budget with the hope that in fact there would
be that opportunity to do something in a bipartisan way here that I
could support it, and quite frankly there were things that I liked

[[Page H1517]]

when I looked into it. I liked the fact that it assumes permanent
estate tax relief for families with farms and small businesses, a good
idea. I liked the PAYGO provision, a good idea. Establishing a point of
order against legislation with costs that begin outside the budget
window, a great idea. I went through it thinking this is going to be
good, I can support this piece of legislation.
But then, of course, you come to those parts that make all of this
simply unsupportable and that is the fact that you get to the part
where you see it raises taxes. It raises taxes that were enacted in
2001; it eliminates those tax cuts until 2010. It applies significant
hurdles that could prevent us from making the current tax cuts
permanent. This could cripple our economy and our economic recovery. It
establishes various slush funds in order to increase government
spending in education programs, in law enforcement, in health
insurance; and it is presented as a truthful budget. But there is no
reference to these slush funds that exist in this budget. That is not
being truthful with the American public. It increases taxes on small
business which is, of course, the engine that drives our economy.
And so I say, Mr. Chairman, it is impossible for me to support this
budget although I looked longingly at doing so, the desire to do so;
but it all comes to naught when you raise taxes on the American public.
That puts us into a different situation entirely, and it stops the
engine of recovery that I believe is under way.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to
my friend. I was getting my hopes up because he gave all the reasons
why he should support the budget; but the idea of a slush fund, it is
the same thing that is in the majority Budget Committee's report that
comes before the House. We only say you can spend more if you pay for
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to respond to some of the comments
that have been made. I am very appreciative of all the positive
attributes the gentleman has recognized in the Blue Dog budget.
Particularly of significance is the fact that we would apply PAYGO
provisions not only to spending measures but to revenue measures as
well. Any budget resolution that fails to do so simply lacks any
meaningful enforcement mechanism.
Opposition has been raised that this measure raises taxes. The fact
of the matter is that the majority resolution raises taxes. It simply
raises taxes on our children, on my 5-year-old and my 1-year-old. They
are going to pay more taxes because of the majority resolution. It
raises the debt tax that all of us pay. A tax cut that is not paid for,
and the majority resolution does not pay for its tax cuts, is no tax
cut at all. It is merely a deferral to our children.
Mr. Chairman, just 3 years ago, the state of our economy was very
strong. We had seen 20 million new jobs created, we had seen the
fastest growth in 30 years, the lowest unemployment in 30 years, the
lowest poverty rates in 20 years, and the first back-to-back surpluses
in 42 years. But now we are in a very different place. We have lost 2.2
million jobs in the last 3 years and, despite a rise in the stock
market and productivity gains, there are no new jobs. This result was
not unforeseeable. The members of the Blue Dog Coalition warned we were
spending money that we did not have, that the administration lacked an
economic plan, and that tax cuts alone were not a substitute for an
economic plan. At the same time, Congress voted to increase the
national debt. These ill advised economic decisions have led to the
largest deficits in the Nation's history with no plan in sight to put
our fiscal house in order. It is time for us to put our fiscal house in
order.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Blue Dog budget, a
package that combines the spending restraint in the administration's
budget with strong budget enforcement measures and responsible tax
policy to reduce the deficit and balance the budget by 2012.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to say there
has been some discussion here on the floor about how honest this budget
is. Let me just point out, we are having a chance to read this thing
and it cuts Medicare. Maybe I am missing something, but we are actually
going to ask people to vote to cut Medicare. Not only do you cut
Medicare, a $156 billion cut to Medicare, but I have read your budget
and there is no reconciliation instruction in here on how to cut
Medicare or even if you are going to cut Medicare. No reconciliation,
just a plugged number in here of $156 billion.
They are advertising that their budget somehow reduces the deficit
more. It does not reduce the deficit more. They have got plugged
numbers in this budget. Somebody has rushed this budget to the floor
with plugged numbers. If you are in a hole, stop digging, huh? Well,
you better have a real shovel and not just try and fill it in with
fantasy. $156 billion of Medicare cuts. I want you to go home and
explain to your seniors that issue.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, that is a total misrepresentation of our
budget and the gentleman knows it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time. I think it is pretty clear that when you look at the Blue
Dog budget and compare it to the Republican budget, the Blue Dog budget
moves us to a balanced budget in 8 years. The Republican budget does
not. In fact, the Republican budget makes no effort to move us toward a
balanced budget. It is really hard to comprehend that next fiscal year
we are projected to have a $521 billion deficit. That means under the
Republican game plan, of those 13 appropriations bills that we are
going to pass to run the government for the next year, 60 percent is
going to be borrowed money. How we can ask this Congress or the
American people to accept a Republican budget that does not move us
toward balance is hard to comprehend. The Blue Dog budget will balance
in 2012. The Blue Dog budget does that by making the difficult choices
that this Congress and the American people expect the Congress to make.
When we look at where the Republican budget puts its priorities, we
see very clearly that the Republican budget, in an effort to try to
present something to the House that will provide some framework for the
appropriations process, provides cuts in critical areas of homeland
security. The Blue Dog budget does not cut homeland security. The Blue
Dog budget maintains what the President has requested. Yet the
Republicans' own budget cuts below the President's budget for homeland
security at a time when we all know we are under serious threat of
another al Qaeda terrorist attack.
When we look at the Blue Dog budget, we have an alternative that I
hope will be appealing to the Republicans. I hope that some of them
will join with us. It is a responsible plan, it should be a bipartisan
plan, and we offer it to them with the best intention of moving away
from the terrible deficits that the Republicans have offered us in
recent years.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to
the chairman. The cuts in Medicare that he mentioned are the
advertising dollars that are being spent to justify the Medicare
prescription drug bill that I was told by the same chairman and the
Budget Committee was going to cost $400 billion. I was misled as
everyone else in this body was misled because the cost was $530
billion. That is the cuts we are proposing. You do not need to
advertise false numbers, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Case).
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, this is a message to a group of my colleagues
that I cannot find: moderate, fiscally responsible Republicans,
colleagues whose views on our national budget, on fiscal integrity, on
responsibility to our children are really no different from my own or
the formers of this substitute. I know you are here. I have talked to
you in the halls, on the floor, out on the road. I know that well over
half of the people that we represent in this country think as we do and
they are not all Democrats. I know that of the five budget alternatives
on the floor today for us to choose from, this

[[Page H1518]]

one represents your own views going away. I know you are outraged at
the fact that this budget that this chair has put forward only goes out
5 years. I know you would never adopt a one-way PAYGO in your home or
business. I know you are sick at a budget that strips resources away
from veterans, education, health care and piles it with those that do
not want for anything in our country.
So here is my message to you: vote for this substitute. Vote for it
because you know it is far and away the most responsible, affordable,
balanced, fair and sustainable budget that is on the floor. Do not make
this a partisan issue. Do not make it that. I would vote for a
comparable substitute coming out of you. Yet all you and I are given
from your side today are two budgets, one principal one that is nothing
more than a lie and the other one that may be a little bit more honest
but demonstrates a fundamental hatred of our Federal Government that
neither of us shares. So vote for this budget substitute not just
because it is the right thing to do but because with your vote, you can
change the course of our fiscal future.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, just continuing to
look at this interesting budget. The gentleman from Texas says that he
is concerned about the numbers being more expensive for Medicare. How
come, then, they adopted the CBO baseline? If they think the actuaries
at OMB are so correct, why did they not have the integrity to put that
into their baseline? Again, they accept CBO. We accept CBO, but they
come to the floor, and they demagogue the issue and they say that OMB
is wrong and that the actuary is somehow correct. Then have the guts to
put it in here. Do not raise taxes on the American people. Cut Medicare
which they do in this instance. And now we find that they also cut
national defense, $2 billion this year alone. National defense is cut.
Where are they going to come up with $2 billion in national defense
this year? Where are they going to find that? There are troops in the
field right now who need our support, and they are asking for $2
billion this year. We have got to find some more details before
somebody can claim that this has the integrity and the honesty to come
before us as a budget.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
Mr. SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let us balance our budget. Let us pay as we go. Let us
pay off our debt and pay off the deficit. Let us support the Blue Dog
budget. Following the plan offered by the House Republican leadership
will succeed in balancing the budget by balancing it on our Nation's
senior citizens, the veterans, the students, the farmers, the teachers,
the economically disadvantaged. How in the world can the majority
propose spending cuts in veterans health care during a time of war? And
the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled
American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and virtually every
national veterans service group shares my amazement.
The Blue Dog substitute will cut the record deficit in half in 2
years, not the 5 proposed by the Republican leadership and balance the
Federal budget by 2012 without relying on the Social Security surplus
and without sacrificing our Nation's veterans and seniors. At the same
time, the Blue Dogs provide both immediate and long-term tax relief to
middle-class American taxpayers, small businesses, and family farmers.
This tax relief consists largely of an acceleration of cuts already
scheduled under current law.
We need to pay for our war effort. We need to take care of our
veterans, and we need to be honest in our budgeting and make sure we
budget for the war effort. The Republican budget does not budget one
dime for the war. That is the reason it is a trick. Let us pay as we
go. Let us balance this budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say, put
your money where your mouth is. Your budget does not balance. You say
balance the budget, but you do not balance the budget. So it is one
thing to say balance the budget, and it is another thing to come to the
floor without a balanced budget. So you say one thing, and
unfortunately the budget says just another.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Garrett), a member of the committee.

{time} 1330

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the real issue here is who
pays and who is hurt? Americans at home are looking for fiscal
responsibility from this House. Whether they are taxpayers, workers,
whether they are people that are relying on essential services from
this government, they are looking for this House to provide them with
some degree of fiscal responsibility.
As I said just last night, we come into this budget process knowing
that we are in dire financial straits with a $521 billion budget
deficit, which simply means, as I said before, we are spending out $521
billion more than we are taking in.
And how does this Blue Dog budget address that? Well, they certainly
do not address it by trying to rein in spending because look at the
spending side of the equation. They are actually saying that even
though they are in a hole, they want to stop digging. They are not
stopping digging at all. They are still digging. They are spending
more. They are spending upwards of $2 billion more in the 2005 budget.
So where is it on the other side that they want to get to the
balanced budget that they speak of? They do it by raising taxes to the
tune of $10 billion in the 2005 budget alone. Back in my State of New
Jersey, $10 billion when I was in State government, that would pay for
almost half of our entire State budget for the year.
They go even further. They want to raise taxes by almost $200 billion
over the life of this budget. So it comes back to the question again,
who pays, who is hurt?
We have already heard that 90 percent of small business pay taxes at
the individual tax rate and that more than 80 percent of an increase in
taxes for the top tax rate would be borne by small businesses. What
does that mean? That means that the tax increases that they are talking
about in the Blue Dog budget will impact upon Main Street USA, on small
businesses, on small manufacturers, on farmers. Those same
manufacturers that we debate in this House over and over again that are
already having a hard time competing overseas with manufacturing and
production are now going to have, under the Blue Dog budget, to see
their taxes go up.
So who pays? Small businesses, mom and pops, farmers.
And, finally, who is hurt by this budget? Besides those people, who
is hurt by this budget are all those people who work for small
businesses, mom and pops, farmers. The workers out there in America,
lost jobs, the family. Who pays? Small businesses. Who is hurt? The
workers of America and families.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
I would like to point out to the distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee that the Blue Dog budget does balance, contrary to his
comment earlier, and I think he was challenging my colleague from Texas
to lay out a balanced budget, I guess, for next year. It must have been
what he was referring to.
But here is our chart. We balance in 2012, 8 years from now. Under
the chairman's 5-year budget plan, they do not balance and apparently
have no plans to balance. So here is the chart.
The Blue Dog budget is in blue, and we balance in 2012. The
chairman's plan does not balance, and apparently there is no plan by
which it will balance.
And I also want to correct another statement the distinguished
chairman made, and that is the allegation that the Blue Dogs cut
defense. We do not cut defense. We maintain the President's numbers on
defense. And in fact, if there is any criticism due here, it should be
on the chairman's budget when they cut homeland security $800 billion
below what the President recommended. We happen to think that it is
important to pursue the war on terror both at home and abroad, and in

[[Page H1519]]

our budget we stay with the recommendations of the President on that
issue.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I have got the figures right here, and there is a cut in defense of
$2 billion in this year. I would suggest you need to read your own
budget because there is a cut in defense, and I say that as
respectfully as I can. I believe we can find savings in defense, but
please do not come here advertising there are no cuts in defense when
you put in this first year alone cuts in defense.
So those are the facts, and I believe that again you have got to look
at your advertisements meeting the reality of the budget itself.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
I yield to the chairman for a simple request. Does the Blue Dog
budget reduce the deficit more than the chairman's budget? Yes or no?
I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not need the time. I have got my own
time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Okay, Mr. Chairman. He does not want to respond. I was
just asking him because I really dislike the kind of rejoinders that we
are getting into now because it is ``he said, you said, I said,'' and
it means nothing.
But since we are into this now, let me talk about the chairman's
budget as it affects agriculture, both in mandatory and discretionary
spending. And this is not about agriculture not being willing to take
our share of the cuts, as the gentleman from Connecticut said
yesterday. Agriculture has always been fiscally responsible and will
continue to be. However, the Chairman's budget will result in a
disproportionate amount of cuts from agriculture.
Keep in mind that in order to keep agriculture at last year's
spending level, the appropriators will have to cut $650 million out of
the farm bill as they did in the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. If we
assume that in the chairman's budget the discretionary cuts will be
proportionately divided among the appropriation bills, then this number
will rise another $1.6 billion. That is correct. That is the chairman's
budget.
And I want to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
read their own budget, what they are being asked to support today and
how it is going to affect rural districts in conservation, water
issues, rural development, environmental issues, research, because this
is real.
And I commend the chairman because he honestly and sincerely is
trying to do what his party has asked him to do. And it is real. His
budget is real in what he proposes to do, including increasing the
deficit $260 billion over the next 5 years. That is real. But he does
it openly and honestly as he is defining it.
What I resent is his defining our budget as not being honest. His is
honest. His will reopen the farm bill. Reopening the farm bill, which
is what we will do under the reconciliation instructions that, if his
budget passes, it will occur. And there are some on that side of the
aisle and some on this side of the aisle that might want to do that.
But I do not think a majority of this body want to go down that path.
So we want to talk about numbers, and we want to go through the
little game we have been playing. Let us go through that little game.
This is not a game. In the agriculture function, this is real. The
chairman is honest in bringing it to the floor and saying, this is what
we will do if we pass their budget. Think about that before voting for
this budget on final passage. Vote for the Blue Dog budget. It avoids
that kind of a problem.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
First and foremost, let me say to the gentleman who is the ranking
member of the Committee on Agriculture, the choice will be the
Committee on Agriculture's choice on where to find those savings, and I
doubt seriously that the gentleman from Texas is going to be promoting
opening up the farm bill. At least I would hope that he does not. That
is not what the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee
on Agriculture, is suggesting.
I would hope that the gentleman from Texas does not believe that we
should open up the farm bill. There is certainly no one on this side of
the aisle, or I should not say no one, but there is certainly no one
who I am aware of who wants to open up the farm bill at this time. That
is not where the savings would come from. So I hope the gentleman would
allow his own committee to work its will and to work within that
committee process.
He asks us to respect the committee process on the one hand, and yet
he predisposes that on the other. And I have to tell the Members I do
not believe the farm bill is where we ought to be looking.
Second of all, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot
say on the one hand, we are going to raise taxes on the job creators,
the small businesses, the farmers, the ranchers, we are going to raise
taxes on those people, and accept the economic assumptions that the
economy is going to continue to grow.
You are saying on the one hand, we are going to kill jobs, we are
going to tax small business, we are going to tax farmers; and on the
other hand, do not worry about the economy, it is going to continue to
grow at the same baseline amount. So you accept our numbers on the
economy, which are derived, in part, from the fact that the tax cuts
are working and the economy, the last 6 months at least, has had the
strongest growth in 20 years.
You are accepting all the good news. You are accepting all the cake.
But you cannot at the same time say, oh, no, but we are going to raise
taxes on those same people who are creating the jobs, who are providing
all that economic development, who are helping to make sure that the
economy is growing, who are spending their money, who are being
productive; we are going to tax them, and we are going to accept the
economic growth. You cannot have it on the one side and then take it
back on the other.
So you need to change your economic factors if you are going to come
to the floor with a budget that you are going to at least purport. That
answers the question.
The very distinguished gentleman from Texas asked me a question. He
said, Are our deficit numbers better or worse? The issue is, we do not
know because you accept the good news of the economy that the tax cuts
have given us, and yet on the other hand you take away the tax cuts.
So on the one hand you say, oh, yes, our deficits are going to get
smaller because the economy is going to improve, because that is the
same baseline that you have; and yet on the other hand, you take away
the goose that is laying the golden egg, by taxing, by digging deeper
into the pockets of the very people who are creating those jobs.
You cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The Blue Dog budget assumes that we need a change. The gentleman's
budget and economic game plan that he has been so proud of since 2001
has given us the largest deficits in the history of this country. We
have borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2\1/2\ years. We are going to
borrow another $1 trillion in the next 1\1/2\ years, and yet he comes
and says his numbers are better than our numbers.
We simply propose a change, and it ought to be a bipartisan change
and it ought to be one that adopts pay-as-you-go so that we get back on
a fiscally responsible direction for this country. We thought we had a
bipartisan support for that. It passed the Senate in a bipartisan way.
What happened in this body?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Texas for yielding me this time, and I appreciate his leadership in
this body and throughout the country on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I was down on the floor the other night. We were
talking about this very same thing, the budget, the deficits, the debt,
and what we are doing to our children and grandchildren. We had this
little fellow down here who looked like Howdy Doody, and he had all the
answers. One could just pull the string and get an answer. He knew all
about it. We have repeatedly had folks come to the well and

[[Page H1520]]

talk about how it is the Democrats' fault. I can tell the Members this:
If it was not so serious, this would be hysterically funny. I can only
imagine what the comedians that make their living that way would do and
will do with this situation.
But it is very serious business. We are doing something to our
children and grandchildren that they cannot even protect themselves
from. We would not consider doing something like this as far as their
nutrition or their health care or their well-being would be concerned,
but yet we are willing to put this monumental massive debt and this tax
that they cannot repeal on them by borrowing money, money, and more
money every day in this country and not being responsible.
The Blue Dogs have proposed that if we cut taxes, fine, let us cut
taxes, and at the same time let us cut spending to go with it. Let us
be honest with the American people. Let us tell the truth. And that is
what we are going to have to do when we finally decide to deal with
this problem in a responsible way.
Over and over again, we have asked the other side of the aisle, we
have asked the administration, please come and let us work together;
and we get those answers ``We do not need you.'' Well, they are right.
They are having their way. I wonder if things are going so well, if the
current plan that we have been under for 3 years is such a huge
success, why are we broke? Why are there no jobs? Why are our children
going deeper and deeper into debt?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let us just get back to this now. We were talking about the economy
and, if this is doing so well, how come we are broke? All right. There
are a lot of things that contribute to that.
First and foremost, let me say to my friend from Arkansas, you have
not heard me blame the Democrats. I blame Osama bin Laden. I blame a
lot of the challenges that we had from the natural downturn in the
economy. I blame the dot-com bubble bursting. I blame the corporate
scandals. I blame a lot of things. You have not heard me blame the
Democrats because, no, you are not in charge.

{time} 1345

I am not suggesting you are. Yes, you have stopped a few things from
going through the other body. Yes, you have stopped a few things from
coming through this body. But, no, I am not suggesting you are in
charge.
But now we are talking about a plan to move forward. You want to
debate history? You can debate history. Let me show you what we are
doing moving forward. As I said, the last 6 months of growth in our
economy has been at the fastest pace in 20 years, the fastest pace in
20 years. So when you say, if your plan is so good, where are you
going, we are going nowhere but up. In fact, the most recent data that
came out today said the economy continued to grow at 4 percent. That is
the first thing, the economy is growing.
What have the tax cuts meant to jobs? All right, unemployment would
have been higher without the tax relief package. It was at this point
in time right there that we reduced taxes, and, as a result of reducing
taxes, look what happened to unemployment. Unemployment went down as a
result of the tax relief package from the line that it was on. In fact,
we are at a lower point in unemployment than we were when Bill Clinton
had his economic challenges back in 1993. We are reducing unemployment.
We are getting people back to work. It is in part because of tax
relief.
Last, but not least, let me just mention this: 2 million more jobs
would have been lost without the tax relief package. Again, looking
here, without tax cuts, we were losing jobs at a record pace. 2.1
million jobs have been created as a result of these new tax relief
packages that have been put into place. We are creating jobs. The
economy is turning around.
Quit blaming tax cuts for all the problems in the world. My goodness,
that is not the case. And when you are in a hole, stop digging in the
pockets of the American people for more money, more money, more money.
Tax and spend, tax and spend. More spending in Washington, more
wasteful Washington spending. My goodness, that is not what we need.
People are telling us they spend their money better than we do here
in Washington. Let us allow them to do it by keeping the money in their
pockets. Let us keep creating jobs; let us keep the economic growth
going strong. This is not the time to raise taxes, as the Blue Dog
budget does.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say in the function 050 defense, the
gentleman was correct in the spreadsheet that he looked at that in the
resolution, we do not cut defense. We had an error in the numbers. We
could not cut defense. We adopt the President's numbers on defense.
That is the way our resolution states.
We also do not cut Medicare benefits for seniors by one dime. We use
the CBO numbers for its prescription drug benefit, and all we say is if
it turns out that that cuts, we are using the same numbers that the
majority is saying. That is all.
It is factual to say, though, that this will reopen the farm bill,
because I know that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte)
and I recognize that if you are instructed to reconcile $2.2 billion
out of discretionary spending, that is tough to do. What are you going
to cut out? The Farm Service Agency, $1.4 billion? Agricultural
research, $1.2 billion? Conservation spending? Where are you going to
go? It will reopen the farm bill. If the majority succeeds in passing
their budget, then we will do so; and it will not be pretty.
Everybody talks about taxes. We have been talking about the debt tax.
In 2004, the average family will pay $4,391 in interest under the game
plan that the chairman has just so eloquently defended. I have never
heard anyone stand on this floor and defend losing jobs, as he just
did. But $4,391 will go to $7,000 per year in a debt tax increase, and
you cannot repeal that tax.
We have borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2\1/2\ years. We are going
to borrow another $1 trillion in the next year and a half following the
game plan that the chairman has eloquently defended at the behest of
his leadership in this House.
We respectfully differ on this side of the aisle. We think it is time
to quit digging. The budget plan that you have before you will not do
it. The only one that will do that on the floor of the House today is
the Blue Dog plan, and perhaps the Democratic alternative.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, let me say to my friend from Texas
and all of the members of the caucus that I respect the fact that they
put together a plan. I should have opened with that. It maybe would
have helped take away some of the sting of the opposition that I have,
because, as the gentleman knows, it is not easy to put together a plan.
The fact that people are willing to put their plan on paper and let
everybody see it and let everybody pick it apart, as I am trying to do
and others will probably do to me and have been doing, I respect that.
But I strongly oppose what the gentleman is offering, and I also
strongly oppose some of the advertisement that the gentleman is
offering.
The gentleman says, you know, when you are in a hole, stop digging.
He is right. When you are in a hole, you ought to stop digging. Digging
to me is spending. That is what is digging our hole deeper.
Unfortunately, what the Blue Dog budget does, it does not throw away
the shovels. It keeps spending. It keeps growing. It keeps wasting
money in Washington.
The gentleman said that we would have to open up the farm bill. First
and foremost, we are not going to open up the farm bill. The gentleman
knows that. That is a signal to the farmers out there, I have a few in
Iowa, he has a number in Texas, that maybe they ought to start worrying
about that. Maybe it is a code word to let them know they ought to
start calling in and worrying about the farm bill. We are not looking
at the farm bill.
Let me tell you what we are looking at. The Agriculture Department
testified before the gentleman's committee, the Committee on
Agriculture, as well as my committee, that they were proud of the fact
that the error rate in food

[[Page H1521]]

stamps has gotten down to a fabulous level of 9 percent, meaning 9
cents on the dollar, or almost one dime out of every dollar, is wasted,
is abused, goes to the wrong people, is used in an underground market
or used as an underground currency, as has been testified. Nine percent
is wasted.
All we are asking for is we are saying would you please look around
your jurisdiction for some of this waste? It is unconscionable that we
have people in this country that are starving, that are going hungry,
that are going without food in their belly at a time when we have
economic challenges; and the Agriculture Department under President
Clinton, and it continues today, was wasting money.
Now, guess what? Do you know why they are proud of the fact it is
only 9 percent? Because the error rate is down from 18 percent. They
are proud of the fact that we are only wasting now 9 cents on the
dollar, instead of 18 cents on the dollar. They are proud of that.
Only in Washington would you be proud of the fact that you are
wasting 9 cents on the dollar. That is the only place in the world.
There is not a small business in Iowa or anywhere across the country
that would be proud of 9 cents of waste on every dollar that they have
to deal with in their business. In fact, there is not a small
businessman or -woman in this country who would not lock the door at
five o'clock and spend the rest of the night, if they had to to figure
out where that 9 cents went and why it was being wasted. You could just
picture them locking the door and looking through every single one of
their books to find that 9 cents.
And yet when it is wasted in Washington, it is defended. They say,
well, that is good. We are improving; isn't that nice? And what we are
saying in our budget is that it is darn time to look for some of this
waste in the budget, and the Blue Dog budget does not do that.
The second thing, I just want to talk about tax cuts real quick. Tax
cuts did not cause the deficit. There would be deficits without tax
cuts.
As you can see from this chart, the taxes are in this blue area right
here. But what is driving the budget into deficit is an economy that
has been rocked, that has been hit in its gut by a number of issues,
everything from 9/11 to the dot-com bubble bursting to corporate
scandal, and we have got to get that economy back on its feet. More
importantly, we have to get families earning again and creating jobs,
along with small businesses.
It would be the wrong time, at a moment in our history when jobs are
about to be created, to gut-punch them again, all those small business
people, and say, yes, we need a little bit more for Washington. Before
you create those jobs, we are going to fund some more of that waste out
in Washington, so we need that money, and to do it and not even
accomplish a balanced budget. They raise the taxes, but they do not
even get to a balanced budget.
The other thing that I just wanted to say, last, but not least, is on
spending. I respect the conservative Democrats, the Blue Dogs. They are
probably our last hope when it comes to Members on the other side who
have any concern about controlling spending. But they fail to do so in
their budget, and it is compounded by such a large history of growth in
spending.
This is not a time to increase spending. This is not a time when we
need to have growth in government. This is a time to look around the
garden and start pulling some weeds, the way every family does across
our country, the way every small business person does across our
country. They look for ways to tighten their belt. Sometimes it hurts
when they tighten their belt.
We are not asking for pain; we are just saying level funding. States
across our country are cutting budgets. Families across the country are
making ends meet with less. Only the Federal Government, for some
reason, believes you can raise taxes for more spending in Washington,
D.C. and call that a success story.
That is why we believe the Republican budget is the way to go. It
holds the line on spending; it funds our important priorities of
strength, growth for the economy, and opportunity for the future. It
deserves a vote.
Please vote against the Blue Dog budget.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Blue Dog Budget
offered by my friend Mr. Stenholm.
Not only does it balance the budget by 2012, it also provides funds
to sustain the Army as it transforms to meet a wide array of
challenges.
The administration's idea that it's okay to pay for predicted, long-
term military operations and plans to increase the size of the Army out
of a so-called ``emergency supplemental'' that will not even be
requested until next January is irresponsible.
This has two negative consequences:
By not funding these crucial activities in the regular budget, we
risk undermining military readiness between the period when the Army
runs out of money and the next supplemental passes.
And, by not funding regular military expenses in the defense bill,
the Pentagon is essentially getting a high interest credit card to
avoid making responsible budget choices today.
As you know, the Army is undertaking its most significant
transformation in fifty years while simultaneously trying to meet the
challenges of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror and
new threats to the United States and to our allies.
Because of the Pentagon's incorrect initial assessment of the force
size needed to stabilize Iraq, Reservists and Guard Members are on duty
more often and for longer periods of time and our active duty force is
severely strained.
The Blue Dog budget does the right thing and funds the Army's force
increase so that we can win the war without breaking the Army, relieve
the Guard and Reserve and let us get back to the business of
transforming the nation's military.
I encourage my colleagues to support the Blue Dog budget Resolution.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time for debate has
expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 243, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 89]

AYES--183

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

NOES--243

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez

[[Page H1522]]

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

NOT VOTING--7

Abercrombie
Hoeffel
Lucas (KY)
McInnis
Pence
Quinn
Tauzin

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1422

Messrs. ROTHMAN, MURTHA, PUTNAM, MILLER of Florida, PAYNE, RUSH,
CROWLEY and Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia and Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of
Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. TIERNEY, GEORGE MILLER of California and SNYDER 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. 3 printed in House Report 108-446.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING. 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:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 3 offered by
Mr. Hensarling:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 is hereby
established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through 2009 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 2005.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Submission of report on defense savings.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

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

Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

Sec. 311. Contingency procedure for surface transportation.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Defense firewall.
Sec. 402. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 403. Emergency spending.
Sec. 404. Enforcement of budget aggregates.
Sec. 405. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990.
Sec. 406. Action pursuant to section 302(b)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act.
Sec. 407. Family budget protection accounts-discretionary spending.
Sec. 408. Family budget protection accounts; mandatory spending.
Sec. 409. Changes in allocations and aggregates resulting from
realistic scoring of measures affecting revenues.
Sec. 410. Prohibition on using revenue increases to comply with budget
allocations and aggregates.
Sec. 411. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.

TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

Sec. 501. Sense of the House on spending accountability.
Sec. 502. Sense of the House on entitlement reform.
Sec. 503. Sense of House regarding the abolishment of obsolete agencies
and Federal sunset proposals.
Sec. 504. Sense of the House regarding the goals of this concurrent
resolution and the elimination of certain programs.

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 2009:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,272,787,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,456,134,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,610,181,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,720,721,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,809,790,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,907,703,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be reduced are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $0.
Fiscal year 2005: $23,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $44,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $34,223,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $36,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $45,357,000,000.
(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: $1,952,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,995,627,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,052,943,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,171,940,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,285,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,399,316,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,911,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,993,628,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,066,992,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,151,234,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,254,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,365,995,000,000.
(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: $638,448,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $539,494,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $456,811,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $430,513,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $444,889,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $458,292,000,000.
(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: $7,436,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $8,086,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $8,867,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $9,227,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,809,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,406,000,000,000.

[[Page H1523]]

(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $4,385,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,765,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $5,055,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $5,300,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $5,547,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,795,000,000,000.

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 2009 for each major functional category are as
follows:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $461,544,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $451,125,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $419,634,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $447,114,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $442,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $439,098,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $464,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,927,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $486,149,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $465,542,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $508,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $487,186,000,000.
(2) Homeland Security (100):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $29,559,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,834,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $34,102,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,997,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $33,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $35,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,635,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $36,520,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $40,420,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,401,000,000.
(3) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(4) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(5) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(6) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(7) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(8) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(9) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:

[[Page H1524]]

(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(10) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(11) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(12) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(13) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(14) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(15) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(17) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(18) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.

[[Page H1525]]

(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(19) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $240,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $240,471,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $270,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $270,507,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $318,306,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $318,306,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $363,189,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $363,189,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $396,474,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $396,474,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $424,724,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $424,724,000,000.
(20) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $1,268,359,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,242,038,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $1,323,733,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,298,485,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $1,313,116,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,330,767,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $1,372,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,370,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $1,431,768,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,421,831,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $1,486,659,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,475,577,000,000.
(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$47,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$47,233,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,475,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,477,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$62,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$63,767,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$65,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$60,856,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,893,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste,
Fraud, and Abuse in Mandatory Programs.--
(1) Not later than July 15, 2004, 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 $220,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $3,100,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(B) Committee on armed services.--The House Committee on
Armed Services shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $50,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $250,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(C) 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 $90,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 2005 and $750,000,000 in outlays for
the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(D) 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 $1,530,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $12,750,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(E) 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 $50,000,000 in new budget
authority for fiscal year 2005 and $190,000,000 in new budget
authority for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(F) 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 $200,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $2,000,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(G) 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 $500,000 in outlays for fiscal
year 2005 and $3,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal
years 2005 through 2009.
(H) 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 $150,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 2005 and $1,125,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(I) 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 $80,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $550,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(J) 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 $50,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $350,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(K) 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 2005 and
$6,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.
(L) Committee on small business.--The House Committee on
Small Business shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $0 in outlays for fiscal year
2005 and $0 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.
(M) 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
$100,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2005 and
$1,150,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.
(N) 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 $10,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $125,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(O) 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 $4,784,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $38,947,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(P) Special rule.--The chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may take into account legislation enacted after the
adoption of this resolution that is determined to reduce the
deficit and may make applicable adjustments in reconciliation
instructions, allocations, and budget aggregates and may also
make adjustments in reconciliation instructions to protect
earned benefit programs.
(b) Submission Providing for the Extension of Expiring Tax
Relief.--(1) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall
report a reconciliation bill not later than October 1, 2004,
that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce revenues by not more than
$13,182,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and by not more than
$137,580,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through
2009.
(2) If a reconciliation bill, as reported pursuant to
paragraph (1), does not increase the deficit for fiscal year
2005 or for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009
above the levels permitted in such paragraph, the chairman of
the House Committee on the Budget may revise the
reconciliation instructions under this section to permit the
Committee on Ways and Means to increase the level of direct
spending outlays, make conforming adjustments to the revenue
instruction to decrease the reduction in revenues, and make
conforming changes in allocations to the Committee on Ways
and Means and in budget aggregates.
(c) Submission Providing for Additional Tax Relief.--(1)
The House Committee on

[[Page H1526]]

Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation bill not later
than October 1, 2004, that consists of changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues by not more
than $9,818,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and by not more than
$45,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through
2009.
(2) If a reconciliation bill, as reported pursuant to
paragraph (1), does not increase the deficit for fiscal year
2005 or for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009
above the levels permitted in such paragraph, the chairman of
the House Committee on the Budget may revise the
reconciliation instructions under this section to permit the
Committee on Ways and Means to increase the level of direct
spending outlays, make conforming adjustments to the revenue
instruction to decrease the reduction in revenues, and make
conforming changes in allocations to the Committee on Ways
and Means and in budget aggregates.

SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON DEFENSE SAVINGS.

In the House, not later than May 15, 2004, the Committee on
Armed Services shall submit to the Committee on the Budget
its findings that identify $2,000,000,000 in savings from--
(1) activities that are determined to be of a low priority
to the successful execution of current military operations;
or
(2) activities that are determined to be wasteful or
unnecessary to national defense. Funds identified should be
reallocated to programs and activities that directly
contribute to enhancing the combat capabilities of the U.S.
military forces with an emphasis on force protection,
munitions, and surveillance capabilities. For purposes of
this subsection, the report by the Committee on Armed
Services shall be inserted in the Congressional Record by the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget not later than May
21, 2004.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

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

SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH INSURANCE
FOR THE UNINSURED.

SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE FAMILY
OPPORTUNITY ACT.

SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MILITARY
SURVIVORS' BENEFIT PLAN.

SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR PENDING LEGISLATION.

Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

SEC. 311. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. DEFENSE FIREWALL.

It shall not be in order in the Senate or in the House of
Representatives to consider any bill making a general
appropriation for fiscal year 2005 if the most recently
reported allocations made pursuant to section 302(b)(1) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 sets out a level for the
Defense Subcommittee and the Military Construction
Subcommittee that when added together totals less than
$402,000,000,000 in budget authority.

SEC. 402. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(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 2006 and fiscal years 2006 and
2007 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 $23,568,000,000 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 2005 that first
becomes available for any fiscal year after 2005.

SEC. 403. EMERGENCY SPENDING.

(a) Exemption of Overseas Contingency Operations.-- In the
House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or an
amendment is offered thereto or a conference report is filed
thereon, that makes supplemental appropriations for fiscal
year 2005 for contingency operations related to the global
war on terrorism, then the new budget authority, new
entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting
therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303,
and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for the
provisions of such measure that are designated pursuant to
this subsection as making appropriations for such contingency
operations.
(b) Exemption of Emergency Provisions.--In the House, if a
bill or joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is
offered thereto or a conference report is filed thereon, that
designates a provision as an emergency requirement pursuant
to this section, then the new budget authority, new
entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting
therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303,
311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c) Designations.--
(1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation
is designated as an emergency requirement under subsection
(b), the committee report and any statement of managers
accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of
the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in
paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the
House without being reported, then the committee shall cause
the explanation to be published in the Congressional Record
in advance of floor consideration.
(2) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency
requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to
life, property, or national security and is--
(i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;
(ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(iv) 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.
(d) Enforcement.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives to consider

[[Page H1527]]

any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report
that contains an emergency designation unless that
designation meets the criteria set out in subsection (c)(2).
(e) 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 subsection (d).
(f) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As
disposition of a point of order under subsection (d) or
subsection (e), 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.

SEC. 404. ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET AGGREGATES.

(a) In General.--Except as provided by subsection (b) of
this section, it shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report providing new budget
authority or providing new entitlement authority, if--
(1) the enactment of that bill or resolution;
(2) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
(3) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form
recommended in that conference report;

would cause for any fiscal year covered by this resolution
the appropriate allocation made pursuant to section 302(a)(1)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to be exceeded.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) of this section shall not
apply to any bill, joint resolution or conference report that
only provides continuing appropriations.
(c) 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 subsection (a).
(d) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As
disposition of a point of order under subsection (a) or
subsection (c), 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.
(e) 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.

SEC. 405. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

SEC. 406. 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. 407. FAMILY BUDGET PROTECTION ACCOUNTS--DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING.

(a) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain a ledger to be known as the ``Discretionary Spending
Ledger''. The Ledger shall be divided into entries
corresponding to the subcommittees of the Committee on
Appropriations and each entry shall consist of the ``Deficit
Reduction Safeguard Balance''.
(b) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it
under paragraph (c). No entry of a negative amount shall be
made.
(c) Whenever a Member offers an amendment to an
appropriation bill to reduce new budget authority in any
account, that Member may state the portion of such reduction
that shall be--
(1) credited to the Deficit Reduction Safeguard Balance;
(2) used to offset an increase in new budget authority in
any other account; or
(3) allowed to remain within the applicable section 302(b)
suballocation.
If no such statement is made, the amount of reduction in
new budget authority resulting from the amendment shall be
credited to the Deficit Reduction Safeguard Balance, as
applicable, if the amendment is agreed to.
(d) Except as provided by paragraph (e), the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget shall, upon the engrossment of
any appropriation bill by the House of Representatives,
credit to the entry balance amounts of new budget authority
and outlays equal to the net amounts of reductions in new
budget authority and in outlays resulting from amendments
agreed to by the House to that bill.
(e) When computing the net amounts of reductions in new
budget authority and in outlays resulting from amendments
agreed to by the House to an appropriation bill, the chairman
of the Committee on the Budget shall only count those
portions of such amendments agreed to that were so designated
by the Members offering such amendments as amounts to be
credited to the Deficit Reduction Safeguard Balance, or that
fall within the last sentence of subparagraph (c).
(f) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain a running tally of the amendments adopted reflecting
increases and decreases of budget authority in the bill as
reported. This tally shall be available to Members during
consideration of any appropriation bill by the House.
(g) For purposes of enforcing section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, upon the engrossment of any
appropriation bill by the House, the amount of budget
authority and outlays calculated pursuant to subparagraph (e)
shall be counted against the 302(a) allocation provided to
the Committee on Appropriations as if the amount calculated
pursuant to such clause was included in the bill just
engrossed.
(h) For purposes of enforcing section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, upon the engrossment of any
appropriation bill by the House, the 302(b) allocation
provided to the subcommittee for the bill just engrossed
shall be deemed to have been reduced by the amount of budget
authority and outlays calculated, pursuant to subparagraph
(e).
(i) As used in this section, the term ``appropriation
bill'' means any general or special appropriation bill, and
any bill or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency,
or continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year
2004 or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.

SEC. 408. FAMILY BUDGET PROTECTION ACCOUNTS; MANDATORY
SPENDING.

(a) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain a ledger to be known as the ``Mandatory Spending
Ledger''. The Ledger shall be divided into entries
corresponding to the House committees that received
allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 as a result of this concurrent resolution, except
that it shall not include the Committee on Appropriations and
each entry shall consist of the ``First Year Deficit
Reduction Safeguard Balance'' and the ``Five Year Deficit
Reduction Safeguard Balance''.
(b) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it
under paragraph (c). No entry of a negative amount shall be
made.
(c) Whenever a Member offers an amendment to a bill that
reduces the amount of mandatory budget authority provided
either under current law or proposed to be provided by the
bill under consideration, that Member may state the portion
of such reduction achieved in the first year covered by this
concurrent resolution and in addition the portion of such
reduction achieved in the first five years covered by this
concurrent resolution that shall be--
(1) credited to the First Year Deficit Reduction Safeguard
Balance and the Five Year Deficit Reduction Safeguard
Balance;
(2) used to offset an increase in other new budget
authority; or
(3) allowed to remain within the applicable section 302(a)
allocation.
If no such statement is made, the amount of reduction in
new budget authority resulting from the amendment shall be
credited to the First Year Deficit Reduction Safeguard
Balance and the Five Year Deficit Reduction Safeguard
Balance, as applicable, if the amendment is agreed to.
(d) Except as provided by subparagraph (e), the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget shall, upon the engrossment of
any bill, other than an appropriation bill, by the House,
credit to the applicable entry balances amounts of new budget
authority and

[[Page H1528]]

outlays equal to the net amounts of reductions in budget
authority and in outlays resulting from amendments agreed to
by the House to that bill.
(e) When computing the net amounts of reductions in budget
authority and in outlays resulting from amendments agreed to
by the House to a bill, the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget shall only count those portions of such amendments
agreed to that were so designated by the Members offering
such amendments as amounts to be credited to the First Year
Deficit Reduction Safeguard Balance and the Five Year Deficit
Reduction Safeguard Balance, or that fall within the last
sentence of subparagraph (c).
(f) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall
maintain a running tally of the amendments adopted reflecting
increases and decreases of budget authority in the bill as
reported. This tally shall be available to Members during
consideration of any bill by the House.
(g) For the purposes of enforcing section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, upon the engrossment of any
bill, other than an appropriation bill, by the House, the
amount of budget authority and outlays calculated pursuant to
subparagraph (e) shall be counted against the 302(a)
allocation provided to the applicable committee or committees
which reported the bill as if the amount calculated pursuant
to subparagraph (e) was included in the bill just engrossed.
(h) As used in this section, the term ``appropriation
bill'' means any general or special appropriation bill, and
any bill or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency,
or continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year
2004 or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.

SEC. 409. 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 201(b) or 201(c) 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--
(A) Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for
the Gross Domestic Product;
(B) Total Domestic Employment;
(C) Gross Private Domestic Investment;
(D) General Price Index;
(E) Interest Rates; and
(F) 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. 410. 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) Subsection (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. 411. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

SEC. 501. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY.

in order to enact legislation to eliminate waste, fraud, and
abuse to ensure the efficient use of taxpayer dollars;
(2) all Federal programs should be periodically
reauthorized and funding for unauthorized programs should be
level-funded in fiscal year 2005 unless there is a compelling
justification;
(3) committees should submit written justifications for
earmarks and should consider not funding those most
egregiously inconsistent with national policy;
(4) the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution should be
vigorously enforced and legislation should be enacted
establishing statutory limits on appropriations and a PAY-AS-
YOU-GO rule for new and expanded entitlement programs; and
(5) Congress should make every effort to offset nonwar-
related supplemental appropriations.

SEC. 502. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ENTITLEMENT REFORM.

SEC. 503. SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING THE ABOLISHMENT OF
OBSOLETE AGENCIES AND FEDERAL SUNSET PROPOSALS.

(a) The House 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 (GAO), 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 has created a
bureaucracy so complex that many local communities stop
applying for economic assistance. At the same time, the GAO
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; and
(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 the House of Representatives that
legislation providing for the orderly abolishment of obsolete
Agencies and providing a Federal sunset for government
programs should be enacted during this Congress.

SEC. 504. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE GOALS OF THIS
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION AND THE ELIMINATION OF
CERTAIN PROGRAMS.

(a) The House of Representatives finds that--
(1) the concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year
2005 should achieve the following key goals:
(A) Ensure adequate funding is available for essential
government programs, in particular defense and homeland
security.

[[Page H1529]]

(B) Foster greater economic growth and increased domestic
employment by eliminating those provisions in the tax code
that discourage economic growth and job creation and by
extending existing tax relief provisions so as to prevent an
automatic tax increase.
(C) 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; and
(4) this concurrent resolution assumes that funding for
many lower priority programs will be reduced or eliminated in
order increase funding for defense and homeland security
while at the same time controlling overall spending.
(b) It is the sense of the House of Representatives 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.
(5) The Advanced Technology Program.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle) on his great work to produce a truly fiscally responsible
budget. It takes a big step in the right direction. But the Republican
Study Committee budget takes even more steps in the right direction.
Budgets are so much more than green eyeshade exercises for
accountants. They are so much more than esoteric econometric modeling.
Beyond the numbers, they are really about values and priorities. The
values and priorities of the budget I offer today are simple, less
government and more freedom. Of all the budgets introduced in Congress
today, none, and I repeat none, contain less government or more freedom
than the Republican Study Committee alternative which I have the honor
to introduce today.
Permit me to summarize what this budget does. First, for only the
second time in a decade, we would actually reduce the size of
government. In the aggregate, we reduce nondefense discretionary
spending by 1 percent and reduce the rate of growth in mandatory
spending by 1 percent. Why is this important? Because it is a fact. It
is an eternal truth that as governments expand, liberty contracts. That
means fewer opportunities for Americans to choose the best health care
for their families, to choose the best educational opportunities for
their children, or to find the best job in a competitive market
economy.
Secondly, this budget fully funds the Commander in Chief's defense
and homeland defense request. This is a Nation at war. For many years
this Nation ran a defense deficit with deteriorating infrastructure,
outdated equipment, and lagging military pay. We must continue to close
this defense deficit because there can be only one outcome to this war,
victory for freedom and defeat for terrorism.
Next, Mr. Chairman, this budget cuts the deficit in half in 3 years.
As the father of a 2-year-old daughter and a 6-month-old son, I take a
back seat to no one regarding my concern about the deficit. But we must
all realize that the deficit is a symptom. Spending is the disease. And
by any measure, spending is out of control. For only the fourth time in
the history of our Nation, the Federal Government is now spending over
$20,000 per household. This figure is up from just 5 years ago of
$16,000 per household, representing the largest expansion of government
in 50 years. Last year, what we call mandatory spending reached 11
percent of our economy for the first time ever. Nondefense
discretionary spending is now almost 4 percent of the economy for the
first time in 20 years, and almost every major Department of the
government has grown precipitously way beyond the rate of inflation.
Besides being out of control, much of this Federal spending,
unfortunately, is just pure waste, fraud, and abuse.
Until recently, Medicare had routinely paid as much as five times for
a wheelchair as the VA had, simply because one bid competitively and
the other did not. In the last year of the Clinton administration, HUD
wasted over 10 percent of their budget making improper payments, $3
billion lost. We spent almost $800,000 for a toilet in one national
park and the toilet did not even flush. And we are just scratching the
surface here.
Example after example shows that many Federal programs routinely
waste 5, 10, 15, 20 percent of their taxpayer-funded budgets and have
for decades.
Mr. Chairman, this has got to stop. Government is inherently
wasteful. It does almost nothing as well as we the people, and it must
be limited. And until we do limit it, we will never prioritize, much
less root out the waste, the fraud, the abuse that permeates every
corner of our Federal budget.
Again, this Republican Study Committee alternative is the only budget
that actually reduces government and thus begins the vital process of
protecting the family budget from the Federal budget.
Next, Mr. Chairman, the RSC budget promotes economic growth by
providing tax relief, $183 billion over 5 years. This will ensure that
we do not imperil our economic recovery by raising taxes as all the
Democrat alternatives propose to do. This figure accommodates the
President's request and will help ensure that tax relief such as the
child tax credit and the marriage penalty tax relief will not be
canceled.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have said that tax
relief represents a huge government expenditure that creates huge
deficits. They are wrong. First, it is not the government's money; it
is the people's money. Secondly, when it comes to the deficit, the tax
relief is miniscule compared to the spending, roughly $180 billion over
5 years compared to over $13 trillion of spending over the same time
period. In other words, if you do the math, tax relief is only 1
percent of total spending. One percent.
If the Democrats truly care about budget deficits, they should focus
their attention on the spending side of deficit, which represents 99
percent of the problem.
Finally, tax relief has proven to be part of the deficit solution,
not part of the deficit problem. Tax relief has helped ignite our
historic economic recovery, created jobs, and brought our unemployment
rate down. And most importantly with respect to the deficit, Treasury
reports show that after cutting tax rates, we increase tax revenues.
That is right. Tax revenues are up.
The final thing that the Republican Study Committee budget does is to
ensure we live up to our commitments to the American people. In other
words, when we pass a budget, we enforce that budget. Too often through
advance appropriations, so-called emergency spending and other devices,
Congress has ignored its own budget. This too must stop. Through
closing loopholes and creating Family Budget Protection Accounts, the
Republican Study Committee budget takes a giant step towards ensuring
that Congress indeed means what it says when it passes the budget.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, budgets are truly about priorities and
values as much as they are about numbers. Our budget prioritizes the
family budget over the Federal budget. It values less government and
more freedom. For the sake of our own children and the future of the
Nation, the Republican Study Committee substitute should be adopted by
the House.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute, and claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of the time I have
claimed in opposition be yielded to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) for purposes of control.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.

{time} 1430

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

[[Page H1530]]

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
There have been a lot of numbers used in this debate, thrown around
with great abandon. I must give my Republican colleagues credit. They
have used numbers and rhetoric very cleverly over these last 2 days,
but I would urge my fellow Americans watching this debate to pay very,
very close attention to the way the numbers are actually being used and
also to what is not being said.
For example, Democrats talked for 20 minutes yesterday about how the
Republican budget seriously underfunds our first responders. The
Republicans responded by saying our numbers were all wrong because
their budget increased funding for homeland security. Then they listed
numbers showing increases in transportation and border protection as
examples. Yet they were strangely silent about funding for police
departments, for firefighters, for other first responders, which was
actually what we were discussing; and they were silent for the
understandable reason that their budget gives these first responders
far less support than they had before 9/11!
We have criticized the Republican budget for creating a spiraling
deficit as their spending plans and their tax cuts kick in over the
next 10 years. They say we are confused because the Republican plan is
going to cut the deficit in half over the next 4 or 5 years. That, in
itself, is debatable, but I promise my colleagues that they will hear
no Republican talk about the effect of their budget on the deficit over
the next 10 years, as their tax cuts for the wealthy and their extra
spending kick in, because the result is deficits in the $500 billion
range, as far as the eye can see.
We have talked about how the Democratic substitute does not merely
reduce the deficit, but actually eliminates the deficit within 10
years, while redirecting more resources toward areas Americans care
about, like education, veterans' benefits, first responders, housing
and safety net programs.
Our Republican friends say, Aha, you do this by raising taxes on
Americans. Well, we do understand that there is no free lunch, and we
want to reinstate the real pay-as-you-go rule that served us so well
through the 1990s. But rather than raise taxes, we are talking about
merely freezing scheduled reductions for those making over $500,000 a
year and also closing some egregious corporate loopholes.
It is true that the tax cuts for millionaires in our plan are less
than the tax cuts for millionaires in theirs. But I doubt we will hear
our Republican friends putting it quite that way.
So, Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to pay very, very close
attention to what numbers are being used by each side and to what is
not being said. Budgets are, after all, about priorities, and the
Democratic priorities are clear. Fund the programs America needs,
balance the budget, and target tax cuts in ways that stimulate the
economy and do not merely enrich the most fortunate among us.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ 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 and I want the thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling) for all of his hard work on making this possible.
I also want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for
his hard work and dedication to reining in spending. The gentleman from
Iowa and the leadership of the House spent a lot of time honestly
listening to Members' concerns. The underlying budget is an important
first step for our conference, and I am very proud to support it.
However, I had hoped that we could do more. Hardworking Americans
have to watch their spending, and so should Congress. Congress has got
to get in the mind-set of spending less.
I will continue to remind my colleagues that Americans expect us to
be responsible with their tax dollars. It takes them a long time to
earn those dollars to send up here for us to spend.
This RSC budget reduces nondefense, nonhomeland security
discretionary spending by 1 percent compared to last year's level. It
assumes the President's numbers for tax relief over the next 5 years.
The Committee on the Budget calls for $152.6 billion in tax relief. We
call for $182.6 billion.
Most importantly, it establishes a fire wall, preventing the
consideration of appropriations bills until at least $402 billion is
provided for defense and military construction. The RSC budget brings
true accountability to the Federal budget.
It is time Congress gets serious about reining in wasteful spending
and getting our budget under control. This is what we were sent here to
do. That is what the American people expect us to do. They want us to
stop business as usual and stop the excuses.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to
allocate portions of his time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Without objection, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is allowed to yield time.
There was no objection.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, there is a moral dimension to these huge
tax cuts the Republicans give to the upper two percentiles. In this
budget, they cut research that would cover Alzheimer's, Parkinson's,
heart disease, diabetes, by $553 million, the research dollars that
will help every American family to avoid the tragedy of these diseases
which would ravage their families.
Tax cuts should not come before an increase in the budget for the
NIH, but worse than that, they also cut $23.6 billion out of Medicaid,
which is the budget which is used for Grandma and Grandpa in nursing
homes across our country with Alzheimer's, with Parkinson's, with heart
disease and every other illness that afflicts our country.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot not fund increases in NIH
research to cure diseases and not have the funding then when they do
not cure it in order to take care of Grandma and Grandpa in nursing
homes.
Watch out, Grandma. Watch out, Grandpa. GOP used to stand for Grand
Old Party. Now it stands for Get Old People, for Got Our Pensions, and
that is exactly what is happening in this Republican budget.
The tax cuts for the wealthiest are sacrosanct, and as a result,
programs that will help every American family deal with the ravages of
disease has to be cut, whether it be in research or in nursing homes.
GOP, get-old-people.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to observe, get old
people? That is kind of interesting.
The one program that seniors in our country depend on is Medicare.
Are there any cuts in the Republican budget for Medicare? No. In fact,
we funded a new drug benefit last year, and that is included in our
budget. But, boy, it is interesting here, as I look at the Democrat
substitute, look on the Medicare line, a cut in Medicare, is it
possible that you could come to the floor with a cute little sign that
says Get Old People and then cut Medicare and yell about it?
I can yell, too, I suppose, but yelling does not make it different.
My colleagues get old people with a Medicare cut. Why is it that they
would come to the floor with a sign that says one thing and present a
budget that does something completely different? At a time when we are
trying to modernize Medicare, provide providers with better
reimbursements and help provide the first-ever prescription drug
benefit under Medicare is not the time to cut Medicare. My colleagues
should not have that in their budget.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) knows that the Medicare bill
that he is bragging about, in fact, is simply a payoff to the drug
companies and to the insurance industries, $46 billion direct taxpayer
subsidies to the insurance industry, $200 billion in direct subsidies
to the drug companies.

[[Page H1531]]

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in absolute astonishment at the
disingenuous budget resolution presented by the Republican majority and
in opposition to the Republican Study Committee's alternative. But at
least the Republican Study Committee, I give them credit, they try to
be consistent. They try to bring down the deficit. They try to say that
we cannot have these tremendous deficits.
I do not know whether to laugh or cry, to actually carve out
protections that allow increases in the deficit by billions. What has
happened to the soul of the Republican Party? Is fiscal responsibility
no longer their mantra? Make no mistake, guaranteeing that we can have
tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts means even bigger
increases in the deficit.
The tax cuts for the rich are robbing us of our ability to fund
needed programs. How can we look at our children and grandchildren and
say we are promoting the general welfare? $7 trillion in debt, every
American now carries a burden of $24,326. Just this year alone we are
spending $340 billion on interest for this debt. We are leaving our
children and grandchildren an economic time bomb.
Just as the baby boom generation begins to retire, this budget spends
every penny of the Medicare and Social Security surpluses over the next
10 years, but not on Medicare and Social Security; and the cuts on
Medicaid are shameful in this budget when we consider that unemployment
is high and people need Medicaid.
Democrats want to balance the budget and pay our bills now, not
sometime in the future. Republicans used to stand in this Chamber and
scream about balanced budgets. What happened to you?
Reject this budget and support the gentleman from South Carolina's
(Mr. Spratt) alternative.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
If the gentleman is concerned about spending, this budget actually
does cut spending. I would encourage him to sponsor it. Additionally,
99 percent of our deficit problem is on the spending side. So I do not
understand why 99 percent of the rhetoric is on the tax side, on the
other side.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate my colleague,
the gentleman from Texas, for introducing an outstanding budget and for
his hard work in making a point, in producing a budget that really goes
a long way towards achieving the fiscal discipline that we need here.
It seems to me the goal of the Federal budget ought to be primarily
to create an environment in which we allow the American people to
maximize their prosperity, to maximize their opportunity, to maximize
their chance to realize the American dream.
If the American people could actually individually vote on this
today, I think this is the budget that would win because the American
people know that our taxes are too high to achieve the maximum level of
prosperity that our country is capable of, and they know that here in
Washington we spend too much money. We have for years, and it has been
accelerating in recent years; and so this is the budget that addresses
those two issues best.
It cuts spending a little tiny bit. That is all, one small part of
the total government spending. We actually propose in this Republican
Study Committee budget a 1 percent cut, one penny out of every dollar
in the nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending area. We
think that there is at least that much waste and fraud and abuse and
unnecessary and duplicative programs, and so we are saying, how about
one penny out of every dollar in just this category?
What else did this budget do? It says that the existing tax law ought
to be permanent, that we should not, at a time when we are just kicking
in a strong economic recovery, we should not raise taxes.
This is a budget that shrinks the deficit, holds spending growth to a
modest level and lowers taxes. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
My colleague across the aisle from Texas is feeling really proud of
himself, because he thinks he found a Medicare cut in the Democratic
alternative. Excuse me, we are talking about $800 million more for
Medicare over the next 5 years. So he is just flat wrong, but there are
a lot of things wrong in this budget.
It is true that when we talk about, well, it is just 1 percent, it is
just a little bit here or there, we are talking about a $2 billion cut
in Medicaid. What is that about? Medicaid? We are talking about the
poorest of Americans, many of whom, by the way, are working 7 days a
week or 5 days a week trying to earn a living and still do not have
benefits. Their children are doing without.
Yes, it is true, we are talking about senior citizens in nursing
homes. Medicaid pays for two out of three residents in nursing homes,
one out of ten residents in assisted living facilities in addition to
home-based and community-based care. We are talking about 52 million
children, disabled persons, persons living with AIDS, parents, senior
citizens who rely on Medicaid.
Is this what fiscal discipline is really about? Is this what we want
to cut in this budget?
The Blue Dog budget, the Black Caucus budget and our Democratic
alternative leave Medicaid intact because that is what government is
supposed to do, help people when they need health care.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger).

{time} 1445

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hensarling
substitute budget. This budget sets priorities by fully funding the
President's defense and homeland security requests while calling for a
1 percent reduction in the rest of the discretionary budget.
The budget addresses waste in non-Social Security mandatory spending
by reducing it by just 1 cent out of each dollar. This budget protects
the recent tax relief from increases for working families, parents and
married couples and provides new tax relief that is necessary to
strengthen the economic recovery.
Finally, this budget begins fixing the broken Federal budget process
by requiring a stand-alone vote to bypass any budget enforcement
mechanism and therefore stopping the practice of labeling regular
spending as emergencies.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hensarling amendment.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we just heard an interesting speech about Medicaid
cuts. So, on the one hand, it is okay when you put a Medicare cut into
your budget, and then come to the floor and say, do not worry about the
Medicare cut in the Democratic substitute, do not worry about that,
look over here at the Republican budget where they are cutting
Medicaid.
Let me tell Members what is happening to Medicaid.
Let us assume for a moment that was coming out of Medicaid, $2
billion was coming out of Medicaid. Sounds like a lot of money; it is a
lot of money, particularly if you are a small business back home and
people are trying to raise taxes.
Let me show what happens to Medicaid with and without the reform.
Instead of spending $1.15 trillion over the next 5 years, we are saying
there are States out there that the Department of Health and Human
Services has discovered are wasting or transferring approximately $9
billion per year of what the Secretary of Health and Human Services
said were suspicious transfers or suspicious spending. Not one penny of
that, he is claiming, is going to nursing homes or seniors, not one
penny. He is saying it is suspicious because the States are playing
games with that money.
So what we say is, we want to look for that money and find out
whether or not the States are doing that. We want to see if we can
provide some of that savings, and we want to put it back into the
program so it actually goes to nursing homes and actually goes to

[[Page H1532]]

people who are in poverty or people who do not have health care or kids
in the SCHIP program.
So what we are saying within our budget is, when we find savings,
because maybe some States are abusing this program or maybe others are
abusing that program, let us take that waste and put it back into the
budget so we have a better health care system for our people who are
indigent.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who specializes every year in
this budget, cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, cutting SCHIP, cutting
programs which protect health in this country, the gentleman from Iowa
knows better.
The fact is, our budget has $800 million in Medicare more than their
budget. Their budget does a much better job of taking health care,
Medicare dollars and shoveling them to insurance company HMOs. The
President said it was only $14 billion insurance subsidies, taxpayer
subsidies to insurance companies, under the Medicare bill until he
signed the bill, then he acknowledged we are shoveling $46 billion in
direct subsidies to insurance companies which also happen to be major
political contributors to the President and to the Republican majority,
not too different from drug company contributions to my friends on the
other side of the aisle, the other major beneficiary of the Medicare
bill.
The Medicaid bill is not just a question of Republicans not reducing
government spending, they are shifting the burden to the States.
California loses $226 million in Medicaid funding; Florida loses $90
million; Ohio, $87 million; Michigan, $60 million, and on and on and
on.
Medicaid covers 70 percent of the nursing homes in this country. If
we pass the Democratic substitute, we are putting America's seniors
ahead of HMOs. If we pass the Republican substitute, we are leaving
seniors and disabled Americans on their own.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Medicaid spending is up 89 percent since 1995, and if the other side
is concerned about the affordability of health care, perhaps they would
join us in doing something about tort reform, medical liability reform
and excess government regulation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee
(Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle) for presenting a budget that cuts spending and continues
the tax relief passed by Congress last year, and also to thank the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for his work on our RSC budget,
which is the most ambitious of our efforts.
The RSC budget and the Budget Committee version differ in two areas:
First, the deficit is cut in half within 3 years in the RSC budget, 1
year earlier than the committee-reported budget. It is $63 billion
lower over the next 5 years as compared to the committee-reported
budget; and while the committee budget does include measures to enforce
the budget provisions, the RSC substitute includes the budget process
reforms that are a critical first step to long-term change in how we
spend.
The RSC budget includes elements of the Family Budget Protection Act
to make it more difficult for future Congresses to bypass spending
ceilings and allows appropriations savings to apply to tax relief or
deficit reduction.
I call on my colleagues to vote in favor of the RSC budget amendment
to make a major step toward fiscal responsibility.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak today and rise
in support of the Republican Study Committee budget because it is a
wonderful budget. I also commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle)
for doing an excellent job.
There are two things that these budgets have in common that the other
budgets that came to the floor do not have in common: Number one, these
budgets get us to a balance quickly, and they do so without raising
taxes by holding the line on spending.
Specifically, the Study Committee budget cuts the budget in half in 3
years, and it does so by making sure that not only do we never let tax
increases occur over the next decade, but also by reducing spending.
This is where our priorities need to lie.
The other budgets which have been brought to the floor say they are
going to balance the budget in a fairly quick time. How do they do it?
They raise taxes. They are trying to make sure that the tax relief that
was put out to the American people this year, that is helping encourage
this economic recovery that is well under way, goes away.
We cannot afford to pull the rug out from under this economic
recovery. These tax relief measures that passed, that help get recovery
under way, need to stay in law. The Study Committee budget cuts
spending, gets the deficit cut in half in 3 years, and makes sure that
every tax cut that the American worker, the American economy, receives
stays in place.
I encourage Members to vote for the Study Committee budget, and I
thank the Committee on the Budget itself for doing an excellent job of
producing a good, lean budget, both of which are leaner than the budget
the President brought to Congress.
This is a good day for us because finally we are getting a handle on
the spending in Washington. Let us pass these budgets and move on to
getting this job done.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I commend the Budget Committee and the
gentleman from Iowa for their work. The Republican budget is, in fact,
a very solid step in the right direction, and it deserves the support
of our Members.
I rise, however, in support of the RSC budget because I believe it is
one step better than the Republican budget, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
I cannot engage in this debate without commenting on how really sad
it is that to too many people across our country this looks like a
complicated debate with a lot of fighting back and forth about
technicalities. Yet in reality it is very simple, but here is how it
gets complicated.
A few moments ago the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said
these Republicans are cutting, and he said GOP does not stand for Grand
Old Party, it stands for Get Old People. But if Members listen
carefully to his words, the first time he said ``cut,'' he wanted to
induce the belief that the Republican budget, the budget put forward by
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), was in fact reducing the amount
of spending for the research programs he discussed. But the gentleman
is a smart Member, and he was very careful in his next comment.
What the gentleman said, and I wrote it down as I listened carefully,
he said ``by refusing to fund the increases,'' they are doing this,
this and this.
That is the essence of this debate. One side of the aisle says fund
the increase, fund the increase, fund the increase. And their
fundamental complaint is the rate of growth we have had in this budget,
3.5 percent is not enough.
But let us look at the history. The history is not a 3.5 percent
growth, which it might be in the current budget. Let us talk about the
real growth.
For the last 3 years in America, notwithstanding the complaints from
the other side of the aisle, we have not had a problem with Americans
being undertaxed, we have had a problem with Congress overspending, and
here are the hard, indisputable numbers. From 2001 to 2002, we
increased spending by 10.7 percent, almost 11 percent in that 1 year.
In the next year, from 2002 to 2003, we increased it by 15.6 percent;
and last year, we said, wait a minute, we said, we had better slow
down, and we increased it by just 3 percent. That is almost 30 percent
in 3 years.
What the RSC budget says, what the Republican budget says to a
slightly less degree is having grown spending by more than 10 percent a
year over the last 3 years, it is time to take a break, it is time to
slow down. So the RSC budget does not say, let us freeze for 1 year,
let us have a small, modest 1 percent cut in nondefense,
nondiscretionary spending.
Make no mistake about it, they want to raise taxes. It is not about
cutting spending, it is about not increasing

[[Page H1533]]

spending, which is what their budget does.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to build on the comments by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) because he made them so well.
In Washington, a cut, the definition of a cut and listen to this, if
you ask for one thing and it is an increase and you do not quite get
the increase you want, then you are cut.
It is like my son, and I hope he is not listening. If my son came to
me and he asked me for a $10-a-month allowance, and I only gave him an
$8 allowance, would it be fair for him to scream that he was being cut
$2? Of course not, because that is just not the way things work. It
does not make sense.
In Washington, however, when you do not get the anticipated increase
you ask for, you can scream bloody murder that you have been cut.
Unfortunately, time and time again Members come to the well or the
floor here and they say we have been cut, we are gouging or we are
eliminating spending, when in fact all we are saying is let us not grow
as fast.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for putting together
such a great budget. I also thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle)
for working so hard to keep spending under control on the nondefense
discretionary side.
The talk about what is a cut and what is not is intriguing. I think
my kids if they knew how much a cut meant in terms of extra income,
they would ask for a cut in their allowance every day. If we look over
the last decade and what the Democrats are calling a cut, we have
actually increased spending five- and sixfold at times.

{time} 1500

So it is not a cut at all. But I just appreciate this budget, the RSC
budget, because we are actually doing what we said we would do when we
came to Washington. When we came to Washington, we said that we were
going to restrain the growth of spending. This budget actually does
that. The Democrat budget, the Democrat alternatives, every one of them
does not do that. They actually increase spending and increase taxes.
So if we really want to restrain growth in government, we have got to
actually see some reductions. That is what the RSC budget does. I
appreciate the gentleman for bringing it forward. I encourage all of my
colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my remaining
time in opposition be allowed to be split, 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), 3 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and that they be allowed to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Again, budgets are about values. They are about priorities.
This is a budget that indeed values less government and more freedom.
It prioritizes the family budget over the Federal budget. We have had a
lot of talk about the deficit, and the deficit is a very serious
problem in our Nation. But the deficit again, Mr. Chairman, is a
symptom. Spending is the disease in our society. By any measure, it is
spending which is out of control. When we are spending over $20,000 per
American household for the first time since World War II and for only
the fourth time in our Nation's history, spending is out of control. We
hear about all of these massive cuts. But, Mr. Chairman, I do not see
them. Since 1995, Medicare spending is up 54.6 percent. Medicaid
spending is up 89 percent; Labor-HHS-Education appropriations since
1998 are up 71.6 percent; Interior appropriations in the same time
period are up 42.1 percent. And the list goes on, always outstripping
the rate of inflation.
But, unfortunately, the same is not true with the family budget.
Since I have been on the face of the planet, the Federal budget has
grown seven times faster than the family budget. I believe this is an
unsustainable and unconscionable growth rate. It is time for us to
finally protect the family budget from the Federal budget.
By adopting the Republican Study Committee alternative, we take the
first step towards doing that. We have had a lot of debate about tax
relief as well, and we certainly have a philosophical debate with our
friends on the other side of the aisle. But, Mr. Chairman, once again,
we have cut tax rates; and guess what, we have more tax revenues
because we have given tax relief to small businesses, we have given tax
relief to families. They have gone out, they have rolled up their
sleeves, they have created new businesses, they have expanded their
businesses. This should not be news. The same was true during the
Reagan administration. We cut rates, and we had more tax revenue. The
same was true in the Kennedy administration. It is the thing to do when
you are facing a recession, put money in the pockets of the people.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle speak about spending
priorities. I, too, want to spend more money on housing. I want to
spend more money on nutrition. I want to spend more money on health
care. I am just not indifferent as to who does the spending. Democrats
want the government to do the spending. We want families to do the
spending. And we know the difference. The family is who needs to be
protected in this budget process, Mr. Chairman. Once again there is
only one budget here, one budget that will actually reduce the size of
government, and that is the Republican Study Committee alternative.
And so, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, if budgets are indeed about
values and priorities, this is a budget that values less government and
more freedom. It is a budget which prioritizes the family budget over
the Federal budget. I encourage my colleagues to adopt it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just said that we have cut taxes and
revenues have gone up. In fact, taxes were cut in 2001. Revenues,
individual income taxes were $994 billion that year. The next year they
went down to $858 billion. The next year down to $793 billion. This
year the estimate is $765 billion, well below the $994 billion level
when taxes were cut on individuals. The facts simply do not bear out
the statement he made.
Let me also straighten out some other facts. First with respect to
Medicare. The chairman, in putting together his mark, decided that he
would adopt the CBO baseline for Medicare spending as opposed to the
OMB baseline, which was $535 billion. CBO is $400 billion. So ignoring
the President's actuaries, he put in the lower number. We, in order to
have an apples-to-apples comparison with that resolution, have adopted
the CBO baseline. Also, there is no difference between us in Medicare
benefit spending. However, because the administration of the program
can be improved, we provide $805 million more over 5 years for Medicare
administration.
Also, on the mandatory side, we provide $8 billion for the Family
Opportunity Act, an act that has enjoyed bipartisan support because it
provides Medicaid coverage to children with special needs in families
who otherwise would not qualify for Medicaid and cannot obtain private
insurance. This is compassionate conservatism. We provided $8 billion
to fund that program so we can finally get it established, and we added
two more provisions in our budget resolution.
First, we said if the price of Medicare, in fact, exceeds $400
billion, then the prohibition against negotiating drug prices included
in the Medicare prescription drug law should be suspended and we should
negotiate lower prices. Secondly, we said take some of the excessive
subsidies provided for the HMOs and redeploy that money. In the
Committee on Ways and Means, we have got reconciliation instructions to
that effect. Redeploy that money to make the Medicare prescription drug
benefit better. We have a manifestly better set of provisions for
Medicare and Medicaid in our budget resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page H1534]]

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I thank the ranking member for yielding time
and thank him for his leadership throughout this whole process.
Mr. Chairman, a budget resolution is all about priorities. I think
few people here would disagree that education has to be one of our top
priorities. All we have to do is look around at what is happening
today. We have jobs being shipped overseas. We are retooling some of
our manufacturing plants. What are our jobs going to be in the future?
What do they require? The one thing we know they require is a good
education. This underlying budget and the alternative fail our
children, fail to provide the investment we need in our future.
Last Congress, we passed sweeping education reforms. We said we want
to have the best educated children in the world. We want to make sure
that they live up to our expectations. But part of that agreement was
funding. This budget leaves children behind. It does not fund Leave No
Child Behind. We promised 29 years ago we were going to make sure that
children with disabilities, that that was funded so our local schools
would not have to pick up the whole piece of that. Last year in our
Budget Committee we said, this is a good idea, Republicans and
Democrats agreed that we should fully fund IDEA; and we said, we are
going to have it done by 2010. This year if you look at the budget
starting in 2005, it increases by a half a percent a year, which means
we will never get there. We said it is important to make sure that our
students have higher education, that that is important. Yet we have not
increased Pell grants.
The budget is a reflection of our national priorities. Our
alternative does better at meeting those priorities than the Republican
budget. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget and
support the Democratic alternative.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 116,
noes 309, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 90]

AYES--116

Akin
Bachus
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dunn
English
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Isakson
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Linder
Manzullo
McCrery
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Nunes
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pitts
Pombo
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Weller
Wilson (SC)

NOES--309

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
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--8

Abercrombie
Hoeffel
Lucas (KY)
McInnis
Pence
Quinn
Tanner
Tauzin

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1532

Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mrs. BONO, and Mr. EVERETT changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. MILLER of Florida, CRANE, FORBES, SULLIVAN, McCRERY, and
RAMSTAD 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.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 90, on
the Hensarling amendment, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when
I should have voted ``no.''

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I was detained in my district for a funeral
earlier today. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following
manner: Rollcall 84 (Previous Question on H. Con. Res. 33)--``aye'';
rollcall 85 (Bureau of Engraving and Printing Security Printing Act)--
``aye''; rollcall 86 (District of Columbia and United States
Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program)--``aye''; rollcall 87
(An Act to authorize the President of the United States to agree to
certain amendments to the Agreements between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican
States concerning the establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation
Commission and a North American Development Bank)--``aye''; rollcall 88
(Congressional Black Caucus)--``no''; rollcall 89 (Blue Dog)--``no'';
rollcall 90 (Republican Study Committee)--``aye.''

[[Page H1535]]

{time} 1530

The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment in the nature
of a substitute No. 4 printed in House Report 108-446.

Amendment No. 4 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Spratt

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

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005.

The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2005 is hereby established and that
the appropriate levels for fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through
2014 are hereby set forth.

SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2014:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,272,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,468,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,637,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,759,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,854,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,965,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,075,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,290,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,494,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,628,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,773,500,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: -$100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: -$8,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: -$16,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $4,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $8,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $12,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $12,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $8,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $10,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $10,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $11,600,000,000.
(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: $1,958,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,031,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,087,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,220,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,343,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,470,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,576,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,699,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,778,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,905,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,033,300,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,917,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,015,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,094,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,194,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,305,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,427,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $2,542,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $2,674,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $2,746,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $2,879,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,006,300,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2004: -$644,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: -$547,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: -$456,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: -$434,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: -$451,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: -$461,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: -$467,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: -$383,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: -$251,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: -$250,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$232,900,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $7,442,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $8,090,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $8,671,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $9,227,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,799,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,384,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $10,978,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $11,488,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $11,880,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $12,267,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $12,638,200,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $4,392,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,778,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $5,055,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $5,295,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $5,535,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,772,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010: $6,001,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011: $6,133,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012: $6,125,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013: $6,107,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $6,066,700,000,000.

SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2004 through 2014 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $463,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $453,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $422,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $448,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $445,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $441,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $466,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $448,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $488,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $467,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $510,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $489,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $522,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $508,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $533,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $528,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $545,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $534,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $558,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $551,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $572,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $564,000,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $43,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $29,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $30,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $31,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $31,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $32,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $33,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $34,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $34,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $35,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $36,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,900,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $23,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $23,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $24,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $25,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $26,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $26,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $27,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $27,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $28,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,700,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $2,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:

[[Page H1536]]

(A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
(A) New budget authority,
Fiscal year 2014: $2,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $32,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $33,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $34,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $35,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $36,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $37,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $39,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $40,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $41,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $42,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,400,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $20,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $26,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $26,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $26,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $8,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $10,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $9,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $10,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $69,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $72,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $73,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $76,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $78,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $79,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $76,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $79,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $76,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $80,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $81,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $82,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $83,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $83,000,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $15,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $18,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $89,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $98,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $95,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $96,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $96,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $98,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $99,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $101,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $103,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $102,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $106,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $104,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $108,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $107,000,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $241,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $239,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $254,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $250,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $259,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $259,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $274,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $273,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $294,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $293,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $316,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $313,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $337,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $336,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $360,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $359,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $387,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $386,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $415,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $446,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,500,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $269,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $288,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $289,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $323,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $322,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $362,800,000,000.

[[Page H1537]]

(B) Outlays, $363,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $388,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $388,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $414,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $414,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $442,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $443,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $479,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $479,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $505,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $505,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $551,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $551,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $596,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $596,700,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $335,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $343,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $346,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $343,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $345,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $348,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $350,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $363,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $364,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $374,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $375,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $386,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $386,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $403,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $403,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $393,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $408,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $408,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $419,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $419,800,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $16,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $24,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $28,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $31,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $33,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $36,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,800,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $61,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $72,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $70,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $68,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $71,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $72,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $74,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $78,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $75,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $80,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $82,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,800,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $41,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $42,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $40,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $41,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $42,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $43,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $44,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $45,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $47,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $48,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $49,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,300,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $20,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $20,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $22,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $23,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $24,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $25,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.
(18) Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $240,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $240,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $270,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $270,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $318,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $318,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $364,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $364,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $397,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $397,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $426,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $426,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $452,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $452,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $474,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $474,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $493,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $493,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $507,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $507,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $522,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $522,400,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $300,000,000.
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.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$47,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$47,200,000,000.

[[Page H1538]]

Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$59,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$61,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$61,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$64,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$64,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$61,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$61,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, -$63,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$63,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, -$66,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, -$68,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$68,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$71,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $-73,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-73,800,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

SEC. 201. SUBMISSIONS BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND
MEANS FOR RESPONSIBLE TAX RELIEF.

(a) Submission.--Not later than October 1, 2004, the House
Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation
bill to the House adjusting revenues in such amounts
necessary to meet the revenue targets contained in section 2
of this resolution.
(b) Policy Assumptions.--It is the policy of this budget
resolution to balance deficit reduction with middle-income
tax relief. Such tax policies shall include but not be
limited to provisions that--
(1) extend the child tax credit;
(2) extend marriage penalty relief;
(C) extend the 10 percent individual tax bracket;
(4) provide relief from the alternative minimum tax for
middle-income taxpayers;
(5) eliminate estate taxes on all but the very largest
estates by reforming and substantially increasing the unified
credit;
(6) extend the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit and
other expiring tax provisions;
(7) accelerate refundability of the child tax credit to
fifteen percent in 2004 and include combat pay in determining
refundability in 2004 and all years thereafter;
(8) preserve American manufacturing jobs consistent with
the objectives delineated in H.R. 3827, the Job Protection
Act of 2004;
(9) close corporate tax avoidance devices and eliminate
expatriation schemes for individuals and corporations such
as, but not limited to, those provisions included in the
President's budget;
(10) reduce the tax cuts resulting from provisions
contained in 2001 and 2003 tax legislation passed by Congress
for taxpayers with annual adjusted gross income (AGI) over
$500,000; and
(11) make new or extended tax cuts subject to PAYGO offset
requirements.
(c) Flexibility for the Committee on Ways and Means.--If
the reconciliation bill reported by the Committee on Ways and
Means alters the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in ways that
are scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation as outlay
changes, as through legislation affecting refundable tax
credits, the bill shall be considered to meet the revenue
requirements of the reconciliation directive if the net cost
of the revenue and outlay changes does not exceed the revenue
amount indicated for that committee in subsection (a). Upon
the reporting of such legislation, the chairman of the House
Committee on the Budget shall adjust the budget aggregates in
this resolution and allocations made under this resolution
accordingly.

SEC. 202. SUBMISSION PROVIDING FOR STRENGTHENED MEDICARE
PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT.

(a) In General.--Not later than October 1, 2004, 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 bill carrying out all such
recommendations without any substantive revision.
(b) Instructions.--
(1) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in law within its
jurisdiction to lower Medicare subsidies to private plans
under Medicare Advantage and to use such savings to increase
the value of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
(2) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in law within its
jurisdiction to lower Medicare subsidies to private plans
under Medicare Advantage and to use such savings to increase
the value of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
(c) Special Rule.--In the House, notwithstanding
subsections (a) and (b), no bill under this section may be
considered unless the net effect of the legislation submitted
by committees under such subparagraphs does not increase the
aggregate deficit. The chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may make the appropriate adjustments in allocations
and aggregates to the extent such measure is deficit neutral
in fiscal year 2005, for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2009, and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through
2014.

SEC. 203. ELIMINATING THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFSET TO THE
MILITARY SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN, SUBMISSION OF
REPORT ON DEFENSE SAVINGS, AND OTHER DEFENSE-
RELATED MATTERS.

(a) Submission.--In the House, not later than May 15, 2004,
the Committee on Armed Services shall submit to the Committee
on the Budget its findings that identify $2,000,000,000 in
annual discretionary savings from (1) activities that are
determined to be of a low priority to the successful
execution of current military operations; or (2) activities
that are determined to be wasteful or unnecessary to national
defense. These should be continuing savings, of a permanent
nature, and sufficient to offset the recurring personnel
costs in (b).
(b) Policy Assumptions.--Recognizing the importance of the
families of uniformed military personnel who have served and
are currently serving our Nation, the Committee on the Budget
instructs the Armed Services Committee to use the funds
provided in the reconciliation directive for the purposes of
eliminating the Social Security offset to the Military
Survivor Benefits Program and raising the existing cap on the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative. The funds
identified in the first paragraph are to ensure that these
programs will not further increase the deficit and are the
basis upon which the Committee on the Budget issues the
reconciliation directive to the Armed Services Committee in
section 204.

SEC. 204. COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES.

In the House, not later than July 15, 2004, the Armed
Services Committee shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to increase budget authority by not
more than $2,000,000,000 and outlays by not more than
$237,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and by not more than
$10,452,000,000 for budget authority and $7,107,000,000 for
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009. The
House Armed Services Committee is instructed to use this
allocation to eliminate the Social Security offset to the
Military Survivor Benefit Program and increase the cap on the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR THE FAMILY OPPORTUNITY ACT.

In the House, if the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reports legislation, or if an amendment thereto is offered or
a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides
Medicaid coverage for children with special needs (the Family
Opportunity Act), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may make the appropriate adjustments in allocations and
aggregates of new budget authority (and the outlays resulting
therefrom) in this resolution by the amount provided by that
measure for that purpose, but not to exceed $53,000,000 in
new budget authority and $52,000,000 in outlays for fiscal
year 2005, and $7,952,000,000 in new budget authority and
$7,626,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2014.

SEC. 302. RESERVE FUND FOR THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAM.

In the House, if the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reports legislation, or if an amendment thereto is offered or
a conference report thereon is submitted, that reallocates
and maintains expiring State Children's Health Insurance
Program funds within such program rather than allowing such
funds to revert to the Treasury, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may make the appropriate adjustments
in allocations and aggregates of new budget authority (and
the outlays resulting therefrom) in this resolution by the
amount provided by that measure for that purpose, but not to
exceed $1,115,000,000 in new budget authority and
$100,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2005, and
$1,115,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,115,000,000 in
outlays for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2014.

SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSITIONAL MEDICAID ASSISTANCE.

In the House, if legislation is reported, or if an
amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon
is submitted, that extends transitional Medicaid assistance,
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make the
appropriate adjustments in allocations and aggregates of new
budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom) in
this resolution by the amount provided by that measure for
that purpose, but not to exceed $23,000,000 in new budget
authority and $23,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004,
$427,000,000 in new budget authority and $427,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 2005, and $3,471,000,000 in new
budget authority and $3,471,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2014.

SEC. 304. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH INSURANCE
FOR THE UNINSURED.

In the House, if legislation is reported, or if an
amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon
is submitted, that provides affordable, comprehensive health
insurance to the uninsured and builds upon and strengthens
public and private coverage, and prevents the erosion of
existing coverage under Medicaid, which could include
temporary extension of state fiscal relief by increasing the
Medicaid match rate, the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may

[[Page H1539]]

make the appropriate adjustments in allocations and
aggregates to the extent such measure is deficit neutral
(whether by changes in revenues or direct spending) in fiscal
year 2005 and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through
2009.

Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

SEC. 311. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE HOUSE.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that
would increase the budget deficit or reduce the budget
surplus for any of the following periods:
(1) The first year covered by the most recently adopted
concurrent resolution on the budget.
(2) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the
most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
(3) The period of the first 10 fiscal years covered in the
most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
(b) Direct-Spending Legislation.--
(1) Definition.--For purposes of this section and except as
provided in paragraph (2), the term "direct-spending
legislation" means any bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, 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.
(2) Exclusion.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``direct-spending legislation'' and ``revenue legislation''
do not include--
(A) any concurrent resolution on the budget; or
(B) 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.
(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.

TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

SEC. 501. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING POLICIES AFFECTING
JOBLESS WORKERS AND JOB CREATION.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) despite the enactment in 2001 and 2003 of significant
tax cuts directed toward the Nation's wealthiest individuals,
the economy of the United States has lost nearly three
million private-sector jobs since President Bush took office
in January 2001;
(2) the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts contributed directly to an
increase in current and projected future deficits that has
reduced national saving and increased net indebtedness to
other countries, and is likely to raise interest rates over
time, which will make it more expensive for firms to invest,
grow, and create jobs;
(3) during the past six months, after almost three years of
consistent job losses, the economy has created only about
61,000 jobs per month on average, which is not half the rate
of job creation required to keep pace with average growth in
the working-age population;
(4) small businesses are the major source of job creation
in the United States, accounting for at least two thirds of
net new jobs created over the past decade, and the Small
Business Administration 7(a) general business guaranteed loan
program accounts for 40 to 50 percent of all long-term loans
to United States small businesses, serving small start-ups
and other borrowers who are unable to obtain conventional
financing on affordable terms;
(5) the President's budget for 2005 cuts funding for Small
Business Administration business loans and technical
assistance programs, and imposes a sharp increase in 7(a)
loan fees that will create cost barriers for borrowers
seeking to start or expand small businesses and create jobs;
and
(6) the President's budget cuts $151 million from adult
training and dislocated worker programs, programs that help
laid-off workers adapt to a constantly evolving job market.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) this resolution supports funding for an extension
through June 2004 of the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation program to take account of the continuing
minimal rate of job growth in the United States economy; and
(2) this resolution supports continuation of the current
discounted fee structure for Small Business Administration
7(a) general business guaranteed loans; provides $100 million
in subsidy budget authority for 2005 to support a 7(a) loan
volume of at least $10 billion at existing guaranty levels;
and provides funding to maintain the Small Business
Administration's Microloan 2004 loan volume of $21 million;
and
(3) this resolution rejects the President's proposal to cut
$151 million in adult training and dislocated worker programs
in 2005.

SEC. 502. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP.

SEC. 503. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON EXTENSION OF THE PAY-AS-YOU-
GO RULE OF 1997.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the ``Pay-As-You-Go'' (``PAYGO'') rule enacted as part
of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 required that any
increase in benefits funded by mandatory spending be fully
offset by an equal increase in tax revenues or by a
commensurate reduction in existing benefits. The PAYGO rule
also required that any tax cut be deficit-neutral, offset by
an increase elsewhere in the tax code or by a reduction in
benefits funded by mandatory spending;
(2) the PAYGO rule played a critical role in turning
chronic deficits into record surpluses during the 1990s;
(3) the surplus of $5.6 trillion projected for 2002 through
2011 is now projected to be a deficit of $2.9 trillion;
(4) the PAYGO rule proved effective in the past and is even
more necessary now to rid the budget of colossal deficits;
(5) the Chairman of the Federal Reserve testified before
the Budget Committee and supported renewal of the PAYGO in
its original form, applicable to both mandatory spending
increases and to tax cuts, and to new tax reduction as well
as renewal of expiring tax reduction provisions.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
in order to reduce the deficit, Congress should extend PAYGO
in its original form in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990,
making the rule apply both to tax decreases and to mandatory
spending increases.

[[Page H1540]]

SEC. 504. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON DEFENSE PRIORITIES.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) continuing the TRICARE for Reservists is a high
priority which should not have been omitted from the
President's budget request;
(2) continuing targeted pay increases for enlisted
personnel for three additional years is also a high priority
which should not have been omitted from the President's
budget request, because it is consistent with the original
proposal of the Department of Defense and critical to the
retention of experienced military personnel;
(3) eliminating the Social Security offset to the Military
Survivor Benefit Program is also a high priority which should
not have been omitted from the President's budget request,
and accommodating the discretionary accrual payment that is
concomitant to eliminating the offset is consistent with
governmental accounting practices;
(4) funding cooperative threat reduction and nuclear
nonproliferation programs at a level adequate to the task and
the risks posed to our Nation is also a high priority, and
the President's budget does not request sufficient funding;
(5) providing for homeland security is also a high
priority, and the President's request is insufficient,
reducing funds for high-risk activities like seaport security
and underfunding first responders;
(6) funding the Missile Defense Agency at the level enacted
for 2004 will provide robust support for ballistic missile
defense;
(7) improving financial management at the Department of
Defense should help identify billions of dollars of
obligations and disbursements which the General Accounting
Office has found that the Department of Defense cannot
account for, and should result in substantial annual savings;
(8) improving the award, oversight, and administration of
nearly $20 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of
Iraq with firms such as Halliburton, and recouping
overpayments and penalties, by auditing and investigating
such contracts, diligently applying the Truth-in-Negotiations
Act, should result in substantial savings; and
(9) all savings that accrue from the actions recommended in
paragraphs (6) through (9) should be used to fund higher
priorities within the national security function of the
budget, function 50, and especially those high priorities
identified in paragraphs (1) through (5).

SEC. 505. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ELIMINATING THE SHORTFALL IN
THE PELL GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that the Pell Grant program
has a shortfall of $3.7 billion that threatens the long-term
stability of the program.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) the mandatory levels in this resolution provide the
$3.7 billion needed to eliminate the current shortfall in the
Pell Grant program;
(2) eliminating the shortfall in the Pell Grant program
restores the program to a sound financial basis and allows
Congress to consider an increase in the maximum award.

SEC. 506. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON HOMELAND SECURITY.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that additional resources
beyond those requested in the President's Fiscal Year 2005
Budget are needed to further strengthen our homeland
security.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) this resolution provides $1 billion in additional
homeland security funding above the President's requested
level for 2005, and $1 billion above the President's
requested level in each subsequent fiscal year; and
(2) the homeland security funding provided in this
resolution will help to strengthen the security of our
Nation's transportation system and other critical
infrastructure, including our seaports, secure our borders,
increase the preparedness of our public health system, train
and equip our first responders, and otherwise strengthen the
Nation's homeland security.

SEC. 507. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING PAY PARITY.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) compensation for civilian and military employees of the
United States, without whom we cannot successfully serve and
protect our citizens and taxpayers, must be sufficient to
support our critical efforts to recruit, retain, and reward
quality people effectively and responsibly; and
(2) to achieve this objective, the rate of increase in the
compensation of civilian employees should be equal to that
proposed for the military in the President's fiscal year 2005
budget.

SEC. 508. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE CONSERVATION
SPENDING CATEGORY.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the 2001 Interior Appropriations Act (Public Law 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; and
(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.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
any law establishing new caps on discretionary spending
should include a separate conservation spending category and
that any caps on conservation spending for fiscal years 2005
or 2006 should be set at the levels established in Public Law
106-291.

SEC. 509. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) President Eisenhower first set aside the original
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1960 for the purpose of
protecting its wilderness, wildlife, and recreational values;
and
(2) while many refuges in America have been set aside to
protect wildlife populations and habitats, the Arctic Refuge
is the only refuge in which wilderness was recognized as a
purpose for establishment; and
(3) in order to protect these unrivaled arctic landscapes
and wildlife values, Congress significantly expanded the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1980 with the passage of
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (Public
Law 96-487), and protected the area against additional oil
and gas exploration or development; and
(4) the biological, cultural, historic, and scientific
attributes of the area are so rich and uniquely entwined, and
the ecological integrity of the area is so vulnerable to
irreparable damage if oil development is initiated, that the
wilderness designation is fully warranted.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should continue to be
protected from oil and gas leasing, exploration, and related
activities.

SEC. 510. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE HETCH HETCHY
RESERVOIR IN YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the City of San Francisco was authorized by the United
States Congress, in the Raker Act of 1913, to construct a dam
and reservoir on the Tuolumne River in Hetch Hetchy Valley in
Yosemite National Park; and
(2) since its completion in 1923, the City of San Francisco
has used water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir for its water
supply and electrical power generation; and
(3) the City of San Francisco currently provides between $2
million and $3 million annually to Yosemite National Park for
use of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir; and
(4) any additional rental payments for the use of the Hetch
Hetchy Reservoir would in all likelihood burden 2.4 million
customers in the City and County of San Francisco and the
Counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Alameda who rely on
its use by raising the cost of drinking water.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
the Federal Government has long followed a policy of
exempting municipalities from annual licensing fees for power
used for municipal purposes or sold without profit and that
this long-standing policy should apply to the Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir.

SEC. 511. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE OUACHITA-BLACK
NAVIGATION PROJECT.

SEC. 512. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE NATIONAL RAILROAD
PASSENGER CORPORATION.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) Amtrak, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
operates over 22,000 miles, serves over 500 communities, and
is responsible for transporting more than 1.4 million
commuter passengers daily; and
(2) Amtrak ridership reached a record high in 2003,
surpassing the 24 million mark for the first time; and
(3) Amtrak continues to implement business reforms that
have improved fiscal controls, more efficiently used
resources, and stabilized operations; and
(4) Amtrak has also embarked on a major capital improvement
program, outlined in a Five-Year Strategic Plan, that is
designed to return the system to a state of good repair so
that passengers may continue to depend on safe and reliable
service; and
(5) in fiscal year 2005, Amtrak must begin to address its
current backlog of necessary capital improvements to avoid
significant impairment in operations and reliability.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
the Federal Government should provide additional resources
sufficient to allow Amtrak to implement the improvements
outlined in its Five-Year Strategic Plan and proceed with
internal reforms.

SEC. 513. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON TAX SIMPLIFICATION AND TAX
FAIRNESS.

It is the sense of the House that--

[[Page H1541]]

(1) the current tax system has been made increasingly
complex and unfair to the detriment of the vast majority of
working Americans;
(2) constant change and manipulation of the tax code have
adverse effects on taxpayers' understanding and trust in the
Nation's tax laws;
(3) these increases in complexity and clarity have made
compliance more challenging for the average taxpayer and
small business owner, especially the self-employed; and
(4) this budget resolution contemplates a comprehensive
review of recent changes in the tax code, leading to future
action to reduce the tax burden and compliance burden for
middle-income workers and their families in the context of
tax reform that makes the Federal tax code simpler and fairer
to all taxpayers.

SEC. 514. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ACCELERATING INCREASED
REFUNDABILITY OF THE CHILD TAX CREDIT FOR LOW-
INCOME FAMILIES.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) work is essential to promoting self-sufficient families
which help children set goals in life and achieve them;
(2) workers of low and modest incomes have seen their
ability to provide for their children eroded since 2001;
(3) members of the armed services serving in combat should
have all the means necessary for providing for their
children; and
(4) 12 million children of American workers (at least
200,000 in military families) will not benefit from the
expanded child tax credit in 2004.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit
from ten to fifteen percent of income between $10,500 and
$26,625 should be accelerated by one year and should take
effect in 2004; furthermore, other provisions in the tax code
notwithstanding, combat pay for members of the Armed Services
should be counted as earned income for the purposes of
calculating refundability of the child tax credit.

SEC. 515. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING A TRIGGER MECHANISM
FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICE NEGOTIATION.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The cost of the new Medicare law, estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office before its passage to be
$395,000,000,000 over ten years, has now been estimated by
the Department of Health and Human Services to be
$534,000,000,000 over ten years. Rising drug prices can
increase the cost of the drug benefit and could end up
shifting additional cost burdens to Medicare beneficiaries.
(2) Prescription drug spending increased 15.6 percent in
2002. These rising costs are one of the primary drivers of
increasing health care spending, which grew 9.3 percent in
2002.
(3) The Veterans' Administration as well as every private
insurer depends on bulk negotiation to keep drug prices down.
(4) According to a study by the Inspector General of the
Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare payments
for 24 leading drugs in 2000 were $887,000,000 higher than
actual wholesale prices available to physicians and suppliers
and $1,900,000,000 higher than prices available through the
Federal supply schedule used by the Department of Veterans
Affairs and other Federal purchasers.
(5) The private prescription drug plans provided for in the
Medicare law do not exist in the marketplace. Therefore, it
is impossible to predict whether these private plans will in
fact be able to acquire substantial discounts through
negotiation. In addition, private plans cannot take advantage
of the full purchasing power of 40,000,000 beneficiaries.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House
that--
(1) legislation should be adopted which would establish a
trigger mechanism for negotiation of prescription drug prices
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and
(2) this legislation would mandate that at any point when
the expected ten-year expenditures for fiscal years 2004
through 2013 for Public Law 108-173 exceed the Congressional
Budget Office estimate for this legislation, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services would be required to immediately
enter into direct negotiations with pharmaceutical
manufacturers for competitive drug prices.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, 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 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, only 3 years ago, our country had created
22 million new jobs and had a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. But
since that time, 3 million private sector jobs have vanished, and we
have seen a $9.3 trillion fiscal reversal.
Manufacturing employment, once the foundation of our economy, is now
at a 53-year low, with many of those jobs having been sent overseas.
Last month, nearly 400,000 Americans simply gave up hope looking for
work altogether.
The Republicans tout their tax cuts as a job-creation plan. If ever
there was a wake-up call that it is time to change course, this is it.
In my State of Connecticut, more than 83,000 citizens are currently out
of work because they were laid off by their employer, because their
jobs have been outsourced, because their company has gone out of
business, or because they were forced into early retirement. And thanks
to the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits, nearly
1,000 Connecticut workers continue to lose their benefits every week.
Despite predictions that 125,000 jobs would be created, last month only
21,000 jobs were actually added to the national economy, none in the
private sector.
So we ask for our constituents and for the country, What course will
the administration and the Republican majority take now? Have they
learned from three rounds of unbalanced and unproductive tax cuts for
the very wealthiest? Will they continue with policies that shift the
tax burden from corporations to their employees? Will they continue
with the economic policies and defending the corporate loopholes that
encourage jobs to be outsourced and companies to be moved overseas? And
will they continue with policies that explode the deficit?
From what I see in the underlying Republican bill, the basic answer
is no change in direction.
The Spratt substitute not only extends unemployment insurance for
millions of long-term unemployed, it calls for a manufacturing tax
credit to create good jobs here at home. It invests in small business
loans, job training, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
program.
By turning aside the Republican budgets and supporting the Spratt
substitute, Congress can embrace an idea that our society can act with
a shared sense of purpose and responsibility to address the tasks
before our country. That is what this budget process should be about,
and that is what we should do.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks to control the time in opposition?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) is recognized for
30 minutes.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut says there is no
change in direction. Let me beg to differ. There is a lot of change in
direction, a lot of change in direction in our economy.
Our economy has, as many of us know and many people listening know
who are out of work, who have had a difficult time with their jobs,
small businesses that have not been able to make ends meet, they know
that there has been a change in direction.
We were heading in a downward path with our economy, but the last 6
months have been the strongest 6 months of growth within our economy in
over 20 years. And why? Because we adopted the best fiscal policy we
could at the time, and that was to say let us give the ability to
create jobs to small business.
What the Spratt substitute does, what the Democrats are rushing to
the floor to claim today, is that right at the moment when we finally
have seen a positive change in direction for our economy, let us give
it a gut-punch. Let us kill the jobs. Let us kill small business with a
tax increase, exactly at the wrong time.
When you propose the tax increases of this budget, what you do is you
kill the jobs, because 90 percent of small businesses pay at that rate
that they want to increase. They want this automatic tax increase to
occur. More than 80 percent of the increase in taxes on this top rate
will be borne by small businesses; and in Manchester, Iowa, in South
Carolina, in California and across the country, those are the
businesses that are creating jobs. We do not want, we do not need, and
we will not support a tax increase right at the moment when the country
is getting back on its feet.
Why do they propose a tax increase? Because they want more spending.
So many of the Members over the last 2 days have come to the floor
wringing their hands about the deficit. Oh, the deficit is so terrible;
let's increase spending. Oh, the deficit is going to be passed on to
our kids; but let us have more wasteful Washington spending.

[[Page H1542]]

Oh, the deficit is terrible because it is going to promote all sorts of
terrible things happening within our economy, but let us continue the
spending.
Spending and tax increases, spending and tax increases, on and on it
goes. You would think over time they would come to the floor with a
much more original budget than continuing tax increases and continuing
big spending.
It is about time that we finally realize in this country that when
you are in a hole, you not only stop digging by controlling spending,
but you stop digging in the pockets of the American family, the
American farmer, the American small businessperson, who does the
spending, who does the working, who does the toiling, that needs to be
occurring in order to make this country great and continue the freedom
and opportunity for our kids into the future.
We have got to control spending. We do not want an automatic tax
increase. Let us not support this substitute.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the chairman believes what he says.
If so, he is extraordinarily wrong. But those of us who have been here
for some period of time have heard this rhetoric before, over and over
again.
In 1993, when we offered an economic program, every leader, the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the ranking member of the
Committee on the Budget, Speaker Gingrich, Leader Armey, an economist,
came to this floor and said if you adopt the Democratic alternative,
the economy is going to go to hell in a handbasket.
They were 180 percent absolutely wrong. In point of fact, we had the
best economy, the best economic performance in the next 8 years that we
have had in the history of America. They do not know what they are
talking about. Maybe they believe it, but they are wrong.
Let us compare the 8 years under George Bush, George Bush the senior,
and George Bush ``W.'' They ran deficits of $2.5 trillion. There is one
person in America that can stop spending in its tracks, just one, the
President of the United States.
Neither George Bush nor his son have ever had a veto overridden
stopping spending. Not once.
Let us get real. Under the 8 years of the Clinton budget, which the
Republicans said would take us down the road of deficits and
unemployment, we had a $61 billion surplus and ran the last 4 years in
surplus, the first time that had happened in the lifetime of anybody in
this room.
Get real. Stop giving us this stuff. And the reason to stop giving
the stuff is what you are doing is back to the same old $2.5 trillion
in debt, except this time you take it from a $5.6 trillion surplus. Who
said we had that surplus? George W. Bush said we had that surplus. What
is it now? A $4 trillion deficit, an almost $10 trillion turnaround.
I say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), that is your
performance. That is the result of your budgets. That is the result of
your economic program, a $10 trillion turnaround to the worst. And who
pays the bill? That is the sad part. The children and grandchildren of
America, that is who will pay the bill.
What this budget that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
is offering does, unlike that of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle),
it brings the budget to balance within 8 years.
Does it ask some people to pay the bill that those young men and
women in Iraq are paying? It does. Is that right to do? It is.
It is exactly what you said in 1993, and you were dead, flat wrong.
Vote for the Spratt alternative. Put America on a safe track so that
our children will not be put deeply, deeply, deeply in debt. Vote for
Spratt. It is right for America.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a member of the committee.
Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in open opposition to this Democratic
substitute, and I promise you I will not scream as I get my message
across.
Not only does this budget raise taxes for small businesses and
working families, but it also increases overall spending and cuts
important funding for homeland security. Raising taxes and increasing
the deficit is no way to ensure economic recovery. This substitute
budget will raise taxes on small businesses and kill job growth.
This substitute increases taxes overall, and does away with tax
relief for middle-income working families. As a result, this substitute
can lead to tax increases on families claiming the child tax credit,
increases in the marriage tax penalty and also increased taxes for
those in the 10 percent, I repeat, 10 percent tax bracket.
I oppose any budget today that will raise the taxes on our working
families and small businesses, period. In Hampton Roads, where I live,
we are leading Virginia in job growth because of tax relief and because
of other policies that help our working families and small businesses.
These tax increases are job killers, and that is all it is.
As if increasing taxes is not bad enough, this Democratic budget also
raises spending. We heard the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) say
it best: How can you speak out against the Federal deficit one minute,
and then vote for irresponsible spending increases the next? This is
just plain wrong.

{time} 1545

This substitute increases spending by $21.6 billion next year in 2005
and by $135 billion over the next 5 years. In this time of fighting a
war on terrorism and stimulating economic recovery, the Democrats not
only want to raise taxes on all Americans and increase wasteful
spending, but they also want to cut money for national security. This
hurts homeland security by cutting money to law enforcement by $2.9
billion over the next 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford this budget. America cannot afford to
return to the days of high taxes, irresponsible government spending,
and poor funding of national security. We are finally recovering from
the consequences of their economic plan, and I strongly urge my
colleagues to vote against this irresponsible, politically motivated
substitute.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to
the gentleman.
The gentleman may not be aware of it, but this budget resolution
which I am now offering as an alternative provides $6 billion more for
homeland security than the Republican resolution, the committee
resolution; it provides $5 billion more for law enforcement programs
under the Justice Department; it provides the very same amount for
national defense. So his criticisms are highly off the mark.
Let me also take a minute to respond to my good friend, the gentleman
from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) with respect to tax cuts.
This resolution in section 201 says very clearly, it is the policy of
this budget resolution to balance deficit reduction to middle-income
tax relief. In that respect, we call for the Committee on Ways and
Means to reconcile and extend the child tax credit, which will expire
otherwise; the marriage penalty relief; the 10 percent bracket; to
provide relief from the alternative minimum tax; to eliminate estate
taxes on all but the very largest estates; to extend the research and
experimentation tax credit; to accelerate the refundability of the
child tax credit from 15 percent; and to include combat pay in
determining refundability; and on down the list with five more
illustrations of where we are calling for middle-income tax relief.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the House
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I support strongly the Spratt resolution.
Quite honestly, it is better on national defense than the resolution
offered by the majority. Here are five reasons why.
First, the Spratt alternative matches the President's overall request
for defense, dollar for dollar. As a matter of fact, the majority
resolution falls $189 million short. When our troops are on the front
lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, Haiti and everywhere else in the world,
I do not think we should cut a dime.
Second, the Spratt alternative saves the privatized housing
initiative by

[[Page H1543]]

raising the cap on the program by $1.1 billion over 5 years. This is
very important for our families. The majority resolution, as written,
assumes no raise in the cap, so almost 50,000 military families that
are supposed to get new privatized housing in the year 2005 and in the
year 2006 will have to wait for adequate housing.
Although there was a discussion on the House Floor in which the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) promised to work with us to try to
resolve the scoring issue, it is not there, and it does not count
unless it is in the resolution. It is in the Spratt alternative.
Third, the Spratt alternative continues TRICARE for reservists,
helping to ensure that all reservists have health care insurance. At a
time when we are leaning more and more on our National Guard and
Reserves, we must fund this program. The majority resolution lets the
program lapse, leaving the families of our National Guardsmen and
reservists without health care insurance.
Fourth, the Spratt resolution continues targeted pay raises for 3
more years. The majority resolution, like the President's budget, has
zeroed out the initiative in the 2005 budget. These targeted pay raises
for intelligence, for special operations, for computer experts, for
those who have those specialized and critical skills that are needed to
stay in, those targeted pay raises are out. They are in the Spratt
alternative.
Finally, the Spratt alternative also keeps faith with those who have
served our Nation in the past. It eliminates the Social Security offset
to the Survivors Benefit program consistent with the bill H.R. 3763, a
bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support. This offset hurts the widows
of those who have served our Nation, and we owe it to those who served
us to correct this inequity.
I support strongly the Spratt alternative as a better resolution.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), the very distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the
statement that was just made by my good colleague, the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). Let me explain why I do not
agree that the Spratt budget is the best budget.
It is true that we can take more money out of what I would call the
operational military, and that is the side of the military from which
ammunition, readiness, present operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are
funded; and we can move it over to the nonoperational military and give
more benefits on that side. The problem with that is that that amounts
to a reduction in the operational military.
We have a top line, and that top line is not expanded by the Spratt
budget, and that means that the people who are retired, who have great
affection for this country and have every right to be treated well by
this Nation, also have another interest, and that interest is to see
that the people who are in the arena today, in the battlefield today,
get every single thing that they can possibly have focused on that
battlefield and have those resources focused on that battlefield.
If we take dollars from the operational military from which the
theaters are being fought today and move it over to programs that are
well-meaning, good programs, but nonetheless programs that are not in
the operational military, that means that we have less money to work
with while we are in a shooting war.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make one second point, though, and that is
that we had a good colloquy yesterday, and I thank the gentleman for
his concern about housing and about the privatization measures that
have been fathered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the
fact that this cap and the present treatment of those dollars could
possibly hinder that construction, continued construction of privatized
housing.
I would just say we had a good colloquy with the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget and we are taking care of that one. So I want
to thank the gentleman for his interest and for his work on this. We
are going to take care of that problem.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is, and I am sure I am
correct, that there will be forthcoming a supplemental request. I am
told it will be in the neighborhood of some $50 billion for the ongoing
operations. So it would seem to me that we would be able, and much
better under the Spratt proposal, to take this money and to make those
corrections that we have in his resolution; and the operating will
continue because of the upcoming supplemental which we will be voting
on sometime this year.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the time to respond to my
friend, I would hope also that we would have a good, robust
supplemental later in the year, but I would just say to my friend that
the moneys that are going to be available at the start of the next
fiscal year in the early fall are going to be there. We might not have
this supplemental back until February or January or March, and I think
a dollar in the hand is more important than a dollar at a later time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to my
good friend, the chairman of the committee on which I also serve with
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
I think he would readily agree, having served in the Army, that
morale is an important operational necessity. What we are trying to
provide for in our resolution is, we have $422.7 billion next year for
national defense, plus a huge supplemental. We are simply saying, can
we not give some primacy to personnel benefits and move around just a
bit of that money to address a long-standing bone of contention,
namely, the fact that widows of deceased service members have drastic
reductions in their pensions when they reach the age of 62.
The gentleman knows that amongst reservists there is a big issue
about TRICARE. We should be doing something to extend TRICARE to
reservists in certain situations. Certainly, I think the gentleman
supports the selected pay increases for the senior NCOs and junior
officers, critical to keeping that core component of the services
intact.
That is what we are trying to provide for, Mr. Chairman. That is all.
We are trying to say, out of $422 billion, that kind of money, surely
we can give some primacy to these priorities.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) so that he may respond.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I appreciate the
gentleman's point.
Toward that point, we have over the last several years, as the
gentleman knows, extended on a bipartisan basis TRICARE for Life, the
concurrent receipt program that was put into effect the year before
last and then expanded last year.
I would simply say this to my friend: We are, according to CBO, this
year, in terms of new equipment for our soldiers, $30 billion
underfunded. That means helicopters that are 18.6 years old, that means
airplanes that are two-thirds of the Navy's airplanes being over 15
years old. That means that, in my estimation, one of the best ways to
build morale for troops in the field is to give them good equipment, so
if we have money to spare, I would say--and we are also low on
ammunition, as the gentleman knows. We have not met all of our
ammunition totals that the Nation is directed to meet by the levels
that we have set, with all of our smartest people working on this
issue.
So if we are $30 billion behind in terms of giving our young people
new equipment, about $10 billion behind on ammunition, that is where we
should put the money first, and I think our retired people would agree
with that.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to
the gentleman, the House Republican resolution calls upon the House
Committee on Armed Services, by May 15, to come up with $2 billion a
year in permanent savings out of operations that are now deemed to be
wasteful or inefficient, and then to allocate those savings to some
additional priorities.
We are saying the same thing. We simply picked up on that idea and
said, fine, here are three good personnel priorities to which this $2
billion in savings could be committed every year.

[[Page H1544]]

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. I thank my chairman and I thank my good friend, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for this conversation.
The gentleman is exactly right. We said, let us take money from
lesser priorities because we are in a shooting war. And the Republican
majority said this: We must redirect that money into the battlefield
for force protection for our troops, for ammunition for our troops, and
for surveillance capabilities so that we can see these IEDs and we can
see the bad guys when they get close to our troops.
So, no, we did not say, let us take that and put that off the
operational military and put that into a retirement plan, as good as
that might be; we said, we know our retired folks are worried about the
troops. We focus that money on theater.
I would just say to my friend, that is where we have to focus the
extra dollars, on the theater in the shooting war, and let us win it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Selected pay
increases and TRICARE for reservists are for fighters, warfighters, not
for nonoperational purposes or retirement purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Chicago,
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, in the 2000 election, President Bush
declared that he was against nation-building. When we look at the
Republican budget, who knew it was America he was talking about. They
have three wars financed with three tax cuts, resulting in a $550
billion deficit.
This budget by the Republicans continues the same policies that have
led to 2.5 million Americans losing their jobs, 43 Americans who work
without health insurance, 2 million Americans who used to be in the
middle class who now are in poverty, and only a 1.6 percent growth in
wages, leading to wage recession in this country.
Now, what we need, and what we have seen today with this budget and
the budget in Iraq is the ``tale of two budgets.'' In their budget,
Pell grants are frozen for college education. There is a cut, and we do
not fully fund the Leave No Child Behind; yet, in Iraq, 2,300 new
schools have been opened. In health care, $90 million has been cut for
the underinsured, yet we have opened up 150 hospitals in Iraq, spending
$800 million in Iraq.

{time} 1600

In the United States, $659 million cut from the police. Yet we are
rebuilding the police in Iraq to the tune of $500 million. Veterans, we
just heard a debate about the priorities in veterans, yet did you know
in Iraq we are spending $150 million to help train the Iraqi veterans
from their past wars?
That is the tale of two budgets. One priority for Iraq, another
priority for the United States.
The Spratt budget lays the right priorities for the United States to
begin the job growth, to begin the burden-sharing by all Americans so
the future for America's children are as bright and as strong as the
one their budget envisions for Iraq.
It is time to not continue the policies as a result of the economic
failures here at home that have resulted in a $550 billion deficit, $3
trillion dollars of national debt, 2.5 million Americans unemployed, 43
million Americans without health insurance, 2 million more Americans in
poverty, and a wage recession that has led to the lowest economic
growth in wages in a period of economic growth.
It is high time we turn around and put this country in the future by
dedicating resources to college education, to health care and the
environment and reducing the deficit and cutting taxes for the middle
class.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself.
Mr. Chairman, the interesting thing about my friends on the other
side is that they know the words of deficit reduction and they know the
words of fiscal responsibility, but they have not yet learned the
music.
They know the words to the song, but they do not know the music
because on the one hand they say that we are gouging, we are cutting,
we are eliminating, we are making it more difficult on the spending
side of the ledger. On the other hand, they say how our economy needs a
shot in the arm; how it needs to be growing again; how we need to be
creating jobs. And yet in their budget, they do nothing on the spending
side because they increase spending or on the growth side because they
kill job creation by raising taxes on small business.
So, yes, they know the words to the song. The words to the song are
almost always easy to learn, but the music is a little more difficult
to learn. So we would invite you to go back and learn the notes to the
song before you come back next time. You have got to control spending
in Washington. You have got to get the economy growing. That was the
recipe of 1997.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, having worked on the 1993 budget that cut
taxes for working families and reduced the deficit by $500 billion and
having worked on the 1997 budget that balanced the budget and cut taxes
for middle-class families so you could both reduce the deficit and cut
taxes, I not only know the music, I know how to dance to that music.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself.
What an interesting concept. Let me review the concept the gentleman
promoted from 1997.
Mr. EMANUEL. 1993 and 1997.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) controls the time.
Mr. NUSSLE. You mean to tell me that the words to this song are cut
taxes and control spending and the deficit goes down. My goodness, what
a novel concept. We should write a budget that says that.
In fact, we have. We have written a budget which is the base bill
today that reduces taxes, keeps them level; reduces spending, keeps it
level; funds the priorities of national security; grows our economy;
controls spending; and gives us deficit reduction. Exactly the words to
the song, exactly the right music and the reason why you should support
the Republican budget.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Both the 1993 and the 1997 budget, of all people, I do not think we
need to go through this; but if we have to, we will. The 1993 budget
reduced the deficit and cut taxes. And it cut taxes on working families
who needed it most and put our priorities and our fiscal house in
order.
The 1997 balanced budget built on the shoulders of the 1993 budget,
balanced the budget and cut taxes. It was the first time the $500 per-
child tax cut was introduced. It was targeted tax cuts to working
families.
This budget that you have guarantees and locks in deficits as far as
the eye can see, and every budget that has been introduced by the
Republicans and President Bush has guaranteed us the largest deficit
and national debt ever in the history of this country. And that is the
difference. Not every tax cut is good and not every tax cut is bad, but
the tax cuts you have chosen have laden the economy with the largest
debt and the largest deficit in the history of the economy. That is
what Ronald Reagan used to say, ``Facts are stubborn things.''
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself.
If facts are stubborn things, then why is it that you would increase
taxes on those families you have just lamented $1.2 trillion over the
course of the Democratic substitute, $1.2 trillion of tax increases.
Why would we go through there? I thought, wait a minute, I thought the
gentleman knew the song. He was talking the right words. He was saying
the right words, but I thought he learned the music too. The music to
this is reduce taxes, keep them low, keep spending under control, look
for waste. That is what the budget that we have presented does, not
increase taxes as the Democrat substitute does.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, not only did we cut the taxes in 1993 and
1997 in our budget this time, it resulted

[[Page H1545]]

in 22 million jobs, a reduction in poverty, a reduction in those who
were without health insurance. And today under your economic
stewardship, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs, 43 million
Americans are without health care, 2 more million Americans are in fact
in poverty that used to be in the middle class, and a trillion dollars
worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on.
These are the economic results of your economic plan. It does not set
priorities. It assumes all tax cuts are equal. And if you think a tax
cut allowing a corporate jet to fly around when children of working
families do not get a tax cut, those are the wrong priorities that
resulted in the economic losses that you have on your record. The 90s
were the best economic period of time; $550 billion of deficit cannot
be erased in a 1-minute speech.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to myself.
Mr. Chairman, there is not an economist in the country, not one
economist who does not say that the economic recession that we had to
face began under President Clinton. President George Bush inherited the
recession from President Clinton. We worked to reduce it and get it
back on a growth path, which we have done.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman was off the floor when I read
page 87, title II, section 201, outlining the tax cuts that we are
calling for and stating the purpose of the resolution, which is to
preserve and serve middle-income tax relief.
I would defy the gentleman to take this and in the four corners of
this report show me where the $1.2 trillion additional tax increases
are coming from. How is that number derived?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to myself.
The way that is computed, I would say to my friend, the way of course
that is computes is we believe that by allowing a tax increase to occur
automatically, that that is a tax increase. So we start with that and
then above that is over the CBO baseline. So that is where we come up
with $1.2 trillion over the 10 years of your budget.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), look, part of the reason why we are having this
discussion is that there are so many people coming to the floor
complaining about tax cuts for the rich. We know what you are up to.
I understand that rhetorically, not the gentleman necessarily, but we
believe within the party what you are up to, that is, you want to, what
you say, is reduce this tax for the highest income tax bracket. I
understand that is not what your budget says, but I am saying that is
what the votes say on the floor time and time again as they come to the
well, and that is, that when that is targeted at that bracket, what you
are targeting, we believe, are small businesses which are creating
those jobs.
I understand that nobody wants to kill those jobs, but when people in
small business are paying at that tax bracket, we believe that kills
jobs. And that is why we do not allow those tax increases to expire. We
believe that would be a tax increase.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself.
The only bracket we refer to is the bracket that would include those
making over, earning, having incomes over $500,000 a year, which is our
definition of a wealthy person. So we are saying do not take all the
benefits away from those taxpayers that have been provided by the 2001
and 2003 tax cuts, but consider cutting them in half, for example, in
order to raise the revenues, to offset the costs of extending middle-
income tax provisions like the 10 percent bracket, the child tax credit
and the marital penalty provisions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, what a difference a week makes. A week ago
and one day from today this House passed unanimously a resolution
saying that we should express our gratitude for the ``valiant service
of our troops in Iraq.'' And yet today the House Republican leadership
in order to continue its failed status quo policies that led to the
highest deficit in American history, the worst job growth since the
Hoover administration, has once again gone so far as to honor our
troops, our future veterans with their words but cut the budget for
veterans health care with their deeds.
That is not the viewpoint of a Democrat or a Republican. That is the
view point of the American Legion. Steve Robertson, director of the
American Legion, said in a letter, in the last 2 days, the American
Legion has activated its grassroots lobbying efforts to defeat H. Con.
Res. 393, the budget resolution for FY 05 through fiscal year 09.
Well, let us look at what the Disabled American Veterans said. Their
national commander, Alan Bowers, said, ``To the veterans of this
Nation, it is incomprehensible that our government cannot afford to
fund their medical care and benefit programs at a time it can afford
generous tax cuts costing hundreds of billions more.''
AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, all of them are saying what
the American people believe. It is wrong and it is unfair to cut
veterans health care services by $1.3 billion, as this budget does, to
pay for a failed economic policy.
We must support our troops in Iraq today who are tomorrow's veterans
with our deeds, not just our words.
Once again, as we saw last March, the Republicans have come to the
floor of the House and during the same month they vote to salute our
troops with resolutions, they vote to cut our troops' future health
care benefits with their budget votes.
The reality is while they may argue they are increasing veterans
health care, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs says this budget resolution will cut veterans health care by
$1.3 billion this year.
Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, liberal, moderate or
conservative, north, south, east or west, it does not reflect the
values of the American people to be asking for more sacrifice from
those troops in Iraq today who are already risking their limbs and
lives.
And I know about that because I was in Baghdad. I was in Iraq. I have
saw American soldiers who had been wounded in Iraq. I saw them in
German hospitals. They have given enough for our country. Republicans
in this House have no right to ask them to give more by having their
veterans health care services cut by over a billion dollars and by $21
billion over 5 years. That is wrong.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the managers the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 16 minutes remaining.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to myself.
Mr. Chairman, let me start by letting the committee know and the
House know that we have a letter from Secretary Principi on the subject
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) just spoke about.
Let me just read from the letter and I will be glad to make this
available as it was just made available to me:
``I write to strongly endorse the House passage of H. Con. Res.
393,'' this budget. ``The President's budgets have provided historic
funding levels for America's veterans today. The Veterans
Administration provides nearly a million more veterans with better,
faster health care than when the President took office.''

{time} 1615

So just in the last 3 years, 1 million more veterans have been
invited into the VA than under former President Clinton.
``The President pledged to reduce the average processing time to 100
days and reduce the inventory of pending claims to 250,000. The
Department is on track to meet those goals.
``When the President entered office, VA was providing care to
slightly under 4 million veterans. Now, at a time when the overall
population of veterans is declining,'' and that is unfortunate,
``nearly 5 million patients are being treated. The President's budget
reflects his strong commitment on preserving the core mission of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.''
He salutes the Congress, he says, and he strongly urges Members to
vote for this budget resolution.

[[Page H1546]]

A couple of other things I just wanted to mention with regard to
veterans spending. The House level for veterans spending is the highest
amount between the two bodies that we will have an opportunity to
support. The House version is higher than the Senate version because
the Senate, when it passed an amendment on the floor, included
unspecified receipts, which is an interesting budget code word for
copayments, fee increases, means testing. Those are ways that we get
those unspecified receipts to be specified.
The result is that, together with Secretary Principi, the House
budget we present today is $1.2 billion above the President's request
to meet the request that Secretary Principi provided to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on the Budget. If my colleagues
want to support a higher veterans spending amount, they need to support
the amount that is provided in this bill.
Veterans organizations are getting snookered out there by being told
that the Senate number is somehow higher than the House number. That
could not be further from the truth. When you hide fees, when you hide
means testing, when you hide copayments into an amendment and then pass
it, that is not necessarily a higher amount because in our bill, in our
budget, we do not accept any fee increases, any copayments, or any
means testing to this program. It is a higher amount than the other
body, and it needs our support.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, at the request of
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), to manage time until he
returns to the floor.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think the AMVETS, the Disabled American
Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
the American Legion, distinguished respected veterans groups who fought
in all parts of this world, its millions of members are snookered by
this legislation. I think they understand exactly what this legislation
is doing. It is not keeping up with health care inflation, and it will
require a cut of $1.3 billion in veterans health care services.
If the Republicans in the Congress think veterans get health care
that is too good and the lines are too short at our VA hospital, so be
it. I think it is the American people that would be snookered by the
passage of a resolution such as this, not our veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Houston,
Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my Texas colleague for
yielding me the time, and I have a prepared statement I would like to
place into the Record.
It is interesting, all of our constituents think we talk about funny
money here in Washington when it is really their money, but I look at
our budget and see there are funny budgets; and I need to remind my
colleagues of the prescription drug budget $400 billion last year, that
could be as much as $150 billion above that, and the seniors around the
country are rejecting it simply because it is not a quality program. So
I worry about what we are seeing.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative and in
opposition to the Republican budget resolution. The Republican majority
breaks a number of long-standing promises to my Texas community,
seniors, students and veterans.
The budget breaks our promise to Texas seniors by spending the entire
$1 trillion Social Security surplus. This continual use of Social
Security to fund the administration's deficits and tax cuts is not
sustainable, and even prompted Alan Greenspan to suggest we cut
entitlement programs or raise the age of Social Security.
The budget breaks our promise to Texas students by providing $8.8
billion below the authorized level for No Child Left Behind.
Despite the rising costs of college tuition, this budget fails to
provide any increase in the maximum Pell grants which 313,832 students
in Texas universities use to help finance their education.
The budget breaks our promise to Texas children by allowing $1
billion in funds for the State Children's Health Initiative Program,
SCHIP, to expire. Already, hundreds of thousands of Texas children are
dropped from the SCHIP program, and we are going to see it even more.
The budget breaks our promise to veterans, as just discussed, by $1.3
billion, short of what we need for veterans health care. The Vietnam
Veterans of America called the Bush budget an insult to veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic alternative
and in opposition to the Republican budget resolution.
The Republican majority breaks long-standing promises to Texas
communities, seniors, students and veterans.
The budget breaks our promise to Texas seniors by spending the entire
$1 trillion Social Security surplus from 2005 to 2009.
This continual use of the Social Security to fund the
Administration's deficits and tax cuts is not sustainable and has
prompted Alan Greenspan to suggest that we cut entitlement programs or
raise the Social Security age.
The budget breaks our promise to Texas students by providing $8.8
billion below the authorized level for No Child Left Behind programs.
Despite the rising costs of college tuition, this budget fails to
provide any increase in the maximum Pell grant awards, which 313,832
students in Texas universities use to help finance their education.
The budget breaks our promise to Texas children by allowing $1
billion in funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP) to expire.
Already, hundreds of thousands of Texas children have been dropped
from the State's CHIP program, and this budget will only cause more
Texas children to lose health insurance during a time when health care
costs are rising rapidly.
The budget breaks our promise to Texas veterans by providing $1.3
billion less than what is needed for veterans' health care programs.
The Vietnam Veterans of America have called the Bush budget ``an
insult to veterans.''
The budget breaks our promise to Texas communities by cutting
homeland security funding at a time of increased security needs.
Houston is the only city in the U.S. to meet all fifteen Federal
threat criteria, yet this budget provides no resources to address a
shortage in first responder or port security funding.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the
Democratic alternative, which funds this country's priorities in a
fiscally- responsible manner.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Let me just give my colleagues this again on veterans health care.
Overall spending for veterans medical care has grown significantly in
recent years. The Congressional Research Service estimates that it has
increased from $17.8 billion in 1999 to $28.3 billion in 2004. That is
9 percent a year of increases, and we will continue that as we move
forward into the future.
Since 1999, spending on veterans medical care has increased from $16
billion to $28 billion a year, a 75 percent increase; and over the past
2 years, appropriation for veterans medical care increased rapidly, by
11 percent in last year alone.
To come to the floor and suggest today that we are not meeting our
promises to veterans is based on the veterans service organizations and
what they call their independent budget. Look, I will tell my
colleagues the same thing I tell them and tell my veterans at home.
They, of course, have earned the right to request any amount they
believe they deserve. That is not the issue. Of course they have the
right to make that request.
Our job, though, is to make sure that we fund and we make sure we are
meeting the demands of veterans, and veterans under President Bush have
gotten not only a promise fulfilled, but we are helping to ensure that
the lines are shorter; that the care is better; and that it is
delivered to as many veterans as possible under this bill. We continue
that promise, and we do it at a faster rate than the other body.
The veterans service organizations have been alerting Members because
they thought mistakenly that the Senate had a higher number than the
House. That is the reason that they were agitating over this; but when
they have read it, when we have read it and when others independently
have read

[[Page H1547]]

it, they discovered that there are these unanticipated fees,
unanticipated receipts, possibly means testing, possibly all sorts of
things that are hidden in there in order to make that number look just
a little bit bigger.
Well, we are not going to do that to our veterans. We have already
rejected that proposal; and as a result, the highest number that my
colleagues can support is for the House base bill presented by the
Republicans.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Modification to Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 4

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the manager's
amendment be modified with the modification I have placed at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to amendment No. 4 in the nature of a
substitute offered by Mr. Spratt:
Delete section 509, Sense of the House regarding the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object, but just for clarification I would yield to my friend from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) under my reservation and just ask the
question, Is there any bottom line impact on a monetary basis to the
budget?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. There is not at all.
Mr. NUSSLE. That is my understanding; and, therefore, I have no
objection and believe that can be supported.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
There was no objection.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 2005 and
my support for the Democratic substitute.
I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
for his leadership on developing a realistic budget plan for our
Nation. Given the state of our economy and the skyrocketing deficit,
now is not the time to engage in more irresponsible tax cuts for the
wealthy, but this is what has dominated the Republican leadership
agenda from the get-go.
The Democratic alternative that we are debating now instead chooses
to invest in our Nation, not cut $2.2 billion from the Medicaid and
SCHIP programs. The Democratic alternative that we are debating would
create jobs and spur economic growth and not underfund the Small
Business Administration.
The Democratic alternative honors our veterans by providing the full
committee-recommended levels of $33.2 billion for 2005. This is in
stark contrast to the Republican plan which shortchanges our veterans
by adding enrollment fees and by increasing copayments.
Our plan invests in the very institutions that make our country
great, small businesses, health care and the educational system, and
invests appropriate funding into our defense system and homeland
security.
I would like to take a moment now and focus on how the Republican
budget also impacts the Hispanic community. Hispanic families across
the Nation join the millions of other Americans who are growing
increasingly concerned and are demanding an actual budget that
stabilizes the future of their health care, of their education and
financial security. Unfortunately, all we see is cuts, cuts and more
cuts of the programs that are vital to our community.
On the economic front, there are 1.4 million Hispanic workers still
looking for jobs, without retraining and not able to continue their
educational prospects, while the Democratic proposal funds job training
and extends unemployment insurance through June 2005. The Republican
budget offers empty promises.
I spoke earlier about our Nation's veterans. There are close to 1.1
million veterans in this country, and we need to be there for them.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The Washington Post has something to say about all of this discussion
on veterans, and let me just read this to my colleagues because The
Washington Post, I do not think anybody would accuse The Washington
Post of being somehow shilling for the Republican Party.
It says here, in fact, in an article on March 24, just yesterday,
``Veterans Funding Dispute not a Simple Matter,'' is the headline. And
it says, in fact, Bush has never cut the agency's budget: ``The
President has proposed increasing its discretionary budget, funding for
programs not required by law, in each of his annual budget proposals.''
In fact, it goes on to say: ``The bulk of that money would go to the
agency's health care programs. Over the course of his administration,
Bush, along with Congress, has increased that portion of the agency's
budget by $7 billion.''
Now, again, there has been CBO discussion, there has been OMB
discussion, there has been veterans discussion. This bill, that bill.
Listen to The Washington Post. They even say our budget is not cutting
funding for veterans.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if I have to choose with standing with The
Washington Post or the Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion,
the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars in
protecting veterans health care services, I think I will stick with the
veterans groups.
Let us look at the bipartisan statement that was made, a letter
signed by the Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
in the House in the last several weeks, saying that we need a $2.5
billion increase in veterans health care just to keep from cutting
veterans health care services during time of war.
The bottom line is they may not like it or not, but the Republican
leadership who have to pay for their failed economic policies that have
led to the highest deficits in American history want to ask veterans to
balance this budget now on the backs of people who have already
sacrificed for our country and people who are sacrificing in Iraq
today.
The truth and the facts are stubborn things to fight, and the fact is
they can throw out all the quotes from The Washington Post they want,
but this budget will cut veterans health care services by over $1
billion during a time of war. That is wrong and it is unfair, and it is
why veterans groups are asking for the defeat of this unfair budget
resolution.

{time} 1630

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Okay, Members do not believe The Washington Post, we will go back to
the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. The Washington Post
may be understandably grumpy that Democrats are not standing with them,
but we will get back to that in a minute.
I want to show Members what was going on during the time when
President Clinton was in charge of the VA budget. Look at that flat
line. Look at that flat line for veterans. Look what happened when
President Bush took office, look how we have been increasing it.
It is one thing to come down here and claim what a terrible job
Republicans are doing and what a terrible job that has meant for VA
health care, but here are the facts: Under Republican control, under
Republican Presidents, VA health care has gone up.
But it is not just the number for health care, look at the number of
veterans that we are serving. During this period of time, the budget
authority for veterans' medical care, look how we are serving more
veterans.
Back during that Clinton period, which is the red period, we were not
serving as many as we are now. That is why this is a good budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
am prepared to begin the closing arguments, if I may reserve the time
not yet used and add it to the 5 minutes for closure.

[[Page H1548]]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 5\1/
2\ minutes remaining on this amendment, and the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Does the gentleman
ask unanimous consent to have this added on?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, we have to bring to conclusion this
resolution, and then we move to a final conclusory debate on the
surviving resolution, if this resolution does not prevail. Is that the
sequence?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the last 10 minutes of general debate
comes after the vote on this amendment.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Is it appropriate to
make a request to expand that last minute by unanimous consent?
The CHAIRMAN. The debate on this amendment can be extended by
unanimous consent as long as it is congruent, so both sides have the
same amount of time; and so debate on the Spratt amendment could be
extended by unanimous consent, but the vote has to be taken after the
debate has concluded.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time, so if
the gentleman from South Carolina would go ahead and close debate on
the Spratt amendment, I will close on it as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is
recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, here are the facts. In the year 2000, the
last year of the Clinton administration, our budget was in surplus by
$236 billion. Members can see it right there. Our deficit reduction
efforts went from a deficit of $290 billion in 1992 to a surplus of
$236 billion in the year 2000.
Today, this year, we are told by the Office of Management and Budget
that the budget will be in deficit by $521 billion. That is a swing of
$757 billion in the wrong direction.
This budget before us sails into these tidewaters calling for
additional tax cuts even though the budget is $521 billion in deficit,
mired in deficit as far out as the forecasts go, and even though these
additional tax cuts can only have one effect, they will add dollar for
dollar to the deficits that are already enormous, $521 billion this
year. If Members want to see what happens if we go on this course, if
we take the course plotted by the President's budget, which is
essentially what this budget is all about, Members can see on the first
page of the CBO analysis of the President's budget, it will add $5.132
trillion to our national debt of $7 trillion over the next 10 years. It
will raise the national debt to $12 trillion.
We have heard it said on the House floor repeatedly that taxes are
not part of the problem. Taxes are not all of the problem. We have had
a terrible toll taken on our economy and budget by terrorism, by war,
and a recession that was not fully foreseen. But look at the tax cuts
on the bottom of this graph. But for the tax cuts in 2008-2009, we
would be close to balance again. That is the effect that the tax cuts
have on the effort before us.
Part of the problem is that not just the tax cuts have taken a big
bite out of the revenue stream of the government, but the surplus of
$5.6 trillion, forecast 3 or 4 years ago, has now proved to be wrong.
That left about half of the pie to be divided up, and fully 60 percent
of that has been allocated to tax cuts, at least over the last 2 years.
It has made it extremely difficult to bring this budget to balance, and
additional tax cuts that the President proposes in his budget will make
the problem even more intractable, more difficult to resolve.
Here is the tax cut agenda. It adds up to $3.7 trillion over the next
10-year period of time. Add up everything that has been done to date,
everything that is pending and what we believe to be politically
unavoidable, such as a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the
revenues to the government will be reduced by $3.7 trillion over the
next 5 years.
Now, the budget before us claims it will halve the deficit in just 5
years' time. It leaves the implication to many people that this
reduction in the deficit will be linear. In truth, if Members read
deeply into the budget, go into something called the Analytical
Perspectives prepared by President Bush's own Office of Management and
Budget, here is what happens to the budget deficit after 2009: It gets
worse and worse and worse over time.
It does not self-correct. It will not go away with growth. We simply
cannot glide to the objective that we all seek and get there without a
bold budget plan, and the budget before us, the Republican budget
before us, does not do the job.
What we offer as an alternative has great merit to it.
Now, what the Republicans have said repeatedly here on the floor is
that spending is the source of the problem, and surely that is part of
the problem. That is a significant share of the problem. But if Members
look realistically at where the spending has occurred in the budget,
they will find that 90 to 95 percent of the increased spending in the
budget over the last 5 years has occurred in homeland security,
defense, and the response to 9/11.
The administration says we have to have progrowth policies and we
have to rein in spending, but it is unlikely that defense and homeland
security are going to be reined in much, and if anything, they are
likely to grow in the near future. So the spikes in the budget, the
ones that Members would go to if they really wanted to get the deficit
down and do it by spending, would be defense.
This chart is difficult to understand, but it shows over 10 years,
from 2002 to 2011, the cost of defense over and above inflation, over
and above inflation, has gone up by at least $1.3 trillion, and this
assumes, as this hump shows, that we do not have any cost for
Afghanistan and Iraq after 2004.
If those are added in, we have a $1.5 trillion increase in defense.
So then we begin to see the problem. We have a $3.8 trillion tax cut
agenda, reducing revenues by that amount, and we have a defense bill, a
defense program, that is costing $1.3 trillion to $1.5 trillion over
and above inflation and over and above what was budgeted just 3 or 4
years ago. When we put those two together, we have in a thumbnail the
problem that confronts us right now.
Here are the numbers that correspond to what I was saying, that show
that defense was going up by $1.3 trillion. That assumes that the cost
of Iraq ends this year; hopefully, it will, but that is doubtful. If it
does not this could easily be $1.5 trillion over and above where we
were a couple of years ago.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) has expired.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1
additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from South Carolina
may proceed for 1 additional minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, we have come up with a budget which takes
these difficult facts and, number one, tries to set a target date for
bringing the budget to balance. We do that in 2012.
Secondly, we have tried to bring the deficit in at lower and lower
rates each year, and lower than our opposition, the Republican budget
on the floor. We have succeeded in doing that. We adopt the full PAYGO
bill. As a consequence of what we propose in our budget resolution, we
bring the budget to balance in 2012.
At the same time, within this fiscal framework, we provide for
middle-income tax relief, we provide more for education, more for
veterans' health care, more for science under the NSF function of the
budget, for example, more for the National Institutes of Health, more
for health care.
Usually we are bringing spending back up to baseline. It is not a
great deal more, but it is more in almost every respect, proving we can
deal with the deficit without pulling up the drawbridge. We can be
compassionate conservatives, conservative in the sense that we bring
the budget to balance, compassionate in the sense that we deal with the
needs of the American people and our country and do not turn our backs
on them.
This is a good resolution we are offering as a substitute. It is
fiscally and

[[Page H1549]]

morally responsible, and I urge that every Member vote for it.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time of the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle) is also extended by 1 minute.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise Members that the 10 minutes of
debate remaining after the vote is taken on this amendment is general
debate time and cannot be extended in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, I would like to extend my congratulations to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is my friend and
colleague on the Committee on the Budget, for coming up with an
alternative, the Democratic leadership substitute. As the gentleman
knows and as I know, it is not easy to come up with a budget blueprint.
As I said at the outset of the debate, it is like when that family or
couple goes to visit the architect and they have to come to grips with
exactly what they can afford and what they want as far as what the home
looks like, what the layout looks like. And it is a hard job to set a
blueprint, but without a blueprint, it is pretty tough when the
carpenters show up to do their work. It is a mess if the budget is not
set out ahead of time exactly where the budget needs to go and exactly
how you are going to get there.
That is why I compliment all Members who came today with a full
budget substitute to the floor.
I would also like to thank our staff which does an awesome job of
preparing us for debate, and preparing the budget itself. Tom Kahn and
Rich Meade from the minority and majority staffs, they keep us in line
and give us good information. We appreciate the job that they do in
getting us prepared for this, and they have more work to do getting us
to a conference report between ourselves and the other body.

{time} 1645

And there is a difference between the sides of this aisle that we
talk about that runs up and down the middle of this body; there is a
difference in philosophy. That philosophy is going to come to bear
today between the competition of these two budgets. One budget believes
that we can continue spending at the rate we are spending in
Washington, and it does not have the effect that we think on this side
that it does. Another side believes that increasing taxes at this time
in our economic situation is okay, is an appropriate part of the
blueprint. I disagree. And we disagree on our side of the aisle.
Raising taxes, increasing spending is not the recipe, is not the
blueprint at this time for our Federal budget or for our economy. And
why is that?
Unfortunately, over the last 2 days, so many Members have come to the
floor and have blamed tax cuts for everything. My goodness. I even
heard, believe it or not, there were Members who came to the floor and
said we were cutting volleyball teams because of tax cuts for the
wealthy and all sorts of things like that. That is not only not in our
budget, it is probably not in anyone's budget.
Tax cuts did not cause the deficit. As Members can see from this
chart, the tax cuts only took us down a little bit. And why did we cut
taxes? We did not just put this white wedge in there for no reason.
There is a reason we reduced taxes. Because when President Bush
inherited the recession from the previous administration, we had to
act. We had to make a decision about what we were going to do with
regard to the economy. We made a decision. It was philosophically
opposed by the other side; but we can respect that, that people,
families, farmers, businesspeople, workers, laborers, men, women, old,
young, rich, poor, whatever it is, they spend their money more wisely
than the government can for them. And if you let them keep that money
and you let them spend that money and you let them work with that money
and invest that money, they do a far better job of getting that economy
going than anything the government has ever been able to do.
What are the results of reducing taxes that did not cause those
deficits? Look what has happened to the economy. The last 6 months have
been the fastest growing 6 months that our economy has seen in 20
years, 6 months of sustained, gigantic economic growth. People will
say, where are the jobs? There is not an economist in the country that
does not tell you that the very last thing that people do with their
money is invest in job creation. Most of the other things that happen
to start the economy going, it does not have so much to do with job
creation. It is what is called a lagging indicator. It is about time
for that lagging indicator to start heading in the right direction, and
it is.
And just at that moment, just at that moment when the economy is
ready to recover and jobs are just now starting to be created is not
the time to come in with a gut punch to the economy and say, let us
raise taxes on the very people who are increasing those jobs, who are
putting on those extra people, who are taking the risk when they open
that store in the morning and saying, I want to hire another person to
work next to me. That is not the time to increase taxes, particularly
because we do not need those taxes out here. We do not need it for
extra spending.
Our budget says, Let's level-fund the government. Let's fund
security, let's make sure we have got a strong America, let's make sure
homeland security and national defense are funded, let's make sure we
fund those priorities that keep us strong; but let's not increase
spending for all of these wasteful things. It is just like any family,
any business, any farmer sitting around their kitchen table right now
trying to figure out how to make ends meet. They will say to
themselves, Honey, what can we put off till next week, till next month,
to next year, maybe even longer? Maybe we can take a vacation a little
closer to home. Maybe we can do some things to trim some of the
expenses. Maybe we can do some things that make more sense than
continuing to add to that spending. That is all we are asking our
colleagues to do. It is common sense. But for some reason in Washington
that common sense is often missed.
We define compassion in Washington by how much you are willing to
spend. I have even fallen into that trap today. I have to confess that
I have even fallen into that trap today, trying to convince veterans
that because we are spending more money we must care more. That is not
the definition. Or because we are spending more money in education,
that somehow we care more. That is not the definition. Or somehow if we
spend more money on farmers or spend more money on seniors or spend
more money here or spend more money there, somehow that defines
compassion. It does not. Oftentimes that money is wasted and wasted in
ways that just frustrate the very people we are trying to help.
So let us not kill the jobs at the very moment in time. Spending is
out of control. Before we even talk about another year's budget, look
where we have come. Every single year, more and more and more spending.
Where does that money come from? It comes from the pocketbooks of every
American in this country. And so when the Democrats come to the floor
and they say, When you're in a hole, stop digging, I say to you, We are
stopping the digging. We are holding the line on spending. What I want
you to do is stop digging in the pockets of families, farmers,
ranchers, small businesspeople, and Americans across the country who
are tired of paying more and more for wasteful Washington spending.
They are saying enough is enough, do with what you can, with what we
have sent you, do a better job with what you already have. Do not ask
us for more. That is why our budget does not increase taxes; it holds
the line on spending. It says, let's look through the garden of all the
different programs of our country and let's start looking for those
weeds, let's start pulling those weeds, let's look for the waste, let's
look for ways to trim that spending, just like every family and
business across the country. We have had way too much spending that we
are building on from the past.
One last thing I want to talk about on spending quickly. Oftentimes
Members will hear that we are cutting spending, but in Washington, it
is a code word. It is a code word for decreasing an anticipated
increase. It is

[[Page H1550]]

just like when my son comes to me and says, Dad, I want 10 bucks a week
for allowance and I only give him 8. Is it fair for him to scream that
that is a $2 cut? No, of course it is not. Only in Washington would a
decrease in an anticipated increase or a desired increase or a wanted
increase be called a cut. All of these accounts that we have been
spending money on, many of which have been increasing at astronomical
rates, we are building on a huge baseline as we move forward.
Last but not least, let me just say that I believe that this budget
that we have put together does not do harm to our Nation's security.
The most important issue, job one, is making sure our country's freedom
is protected. If we are not free, there is not a word of this
discussion that has made any difference at all, on my side or yours. If
our country is not free, if we are not protected, if we are not strong,
it does not matter what we do here today.
So vote for the underlying Republican budget, vote against the Spratt
substitute, and let us make sure that we get to a balanced budget in
the very near future.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the Republican Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2005 and
my support for the Democratic Substitute.
Given the state of our economy and skyrocketing deficit, now is not
the time to engage in more irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy. But
this is what has dominated the Bush Administration and the Republican
Leadership's agenda from the beginning. They did this in spite of the
many competing needs facing our country such as homeland security,
healthcare, education, and veteran's issues.
The Democratic alternative that we are debating now instead chooses
to invest in our nation. I would like to thank the gentleman from South
Carolina, Rep. John Spratt, for his leadership on developing a
realistic budget plan for our Nation.

Homeland Security

When President Bush announced his budget in late January, he cut
first responder funding by $648 million and port security grants by $79
million (63 percent). And the House Republican budget is even worse.
The Republican budget includes the cuts outlined by the Administration
and cuts homeland security funding by an additional $155 million in
2005 and $857 million over five years.
At a time when our Nation continues to face ongoing threats to our
security, it is discouraging that the Republicans would choose to
prioritize tax cuts over security. The Democratic budget addresses this
misallocation of funds and adds back the Republican's budget cuts to
the President's homeland security request, and also provides $5 billion
more than the President's budget over the next five years for homeland
security.

Small Business

Even though 3 million jobs have been lost since the beginning of the
Bush Administration, the Republican budget does nothing to create jobs
here at home or end incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. The
President' budget cut Small Business Administration (SBA) funding by
10.4 percent and the Republican budget significantly underfunds the
SBA, an agency already experiencing problems, financing the important
7(a) loan program. Key SBA programs provide women, minorities, the
disabled, and other small business owners with technical support and
government-backed loans. Faced with major cuts in these programs, many
of the nation's 23 million small businesses will not have the tools
they need to succeed.
The Democratic budget restores the President's cuts to the SBA.
During difficult economic times it is important to ensure our small
businesses, who create three out of four new jobs, receive the
necessary grant funding and support they need to survive.

Veterans

The budget resolution put forth by the Republican leadership
shortchanges America's veterans. Although the budget does include $1.2
billion over the White House request, it is $1.3 billion below the
recommendation of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. Additionally,
it is $1.8 billion below the level needed to simply carry forward the
same level of services from this year into next year.
By not following the lead of the Veterans Affairs Committee, the
Republican proposal supports 13,000 fewer full time employees for
veterans' medical care and will do nothing to help the thousands of
veterans waiting six months or more to see a primary care physician.
This is not the homecoming we want to give to our returning troops.
Our Democratic alternative provides the full committee-recommended
level of $32.3 billion for 2005. That funding level would eliminate the
increased co-payments and enrollment fees proposed by the President's
budget, and it would increase funds for medical facility construction
and renovation. Additionally, it would provide the resources necessary
for more responsive reviews of claims and appeals, improve access to
care and reduce waiting time for all veterans.

Education

Just two years ago Congress authorized No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
legislation designed to improve student achievement in our public
schools. Unfortunately, the President and the Congressional Leadership
continue to appropriate funds below the amount authorized in NCLB. This
year, the Republican budget provides more than $8.8 billion less than
the amount authorized in NCLB.
How can we expect our teachers to better prepare our children when
the federal government does not invest enough funds for education? The
Democratic plan would provide $51.4 billion more in appropriations than
the President's education budget. These funds would help America's
children by funding reading programs and training programs to improve
teacher quality.

Higher Education

Despite rising college tuition costs, the Republican budget freezes
the maximum award students can receive under the Federal Pell Grant
program. The College Board reports that tuition and fees at 4-year
public colleges today average $4,694, however, the average student only
receives a $2,399 Pell grant award.
The Democratic proposal provides $3.7 billion to the program allowing
Congress to increase the maximum award, provides additional benefits to
students by forgiving up to $17,500 of student loans for those who
teach certain subjects in low-income schools and increases loan limits
for first year students.

Working Families

The Republican proposal severely leaves behind America's working
families. Two years ago, Congress enacted the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program to provide 13 weeks of
benefits for workers who exhaust regular state unemployment benefits
before finding a job.
The unemployment insurance program is one of the greatest proposals
Congress has ever passed to help workers during this struggling
economy. The Democratic proposal would help the more than 760,000
jobless workers who have exhausted their state benefits by extending
the program until June. Additionally, it would provide funding to
maintain Section 8 housing programs and restore Hope VI funds for much
needed public housing restoration.

Healthcare

With 42 million uninsured Americans, we must look to improving our
deteriorated public healthcare infrastructure system. It is in
everyone's best interest--local governments, health districts, schools,
hospitals, and the business community--to focus on healthcare. Because
while we often think of healthcare as a deficiency, as something that
sucks money away from other projects, we should instead think of it as
an investment.
The House Republican budget however contains dangerous a dangerous
provision that will cut Medicaid and SCHIP funds by up to $2.2 billion.
These cuts are unacceptable given the tremendous strain already facing
our nation's health care system. Furthermore, cuts to Medicare will
have a disproportionate impact on border residents. Border communities
continue to face double-digit poverty rates and most have been
classified as medically underserved areas. Any funding decrease for our
safety net programs will have a detrimental affect on families and
children living in this region.
Mr. Chairman, the Democratic plan invests in the very institutions
that make our country great--small business, healthcare, our education
system. And it invests appropriate funding into our defense system and
homeland security. It is time for us to clean up our House and get our
priorities straight--I urge Members to vote in favor of the Spratt
substitute.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
Republican budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 393, and in support of the
Spratt Democratic Alternative Budget.
Mr. Chairman, to call the Republican budget resolution a budget is
really a stretch. As we all understand budgets, basically, they are
supposed to reflect meaningful spending priorities, incorporate sound
fiscal policy and in the end to balance themselves. The Republican and
Bush budgets fail on all these points and needless to say the American
people will suffer as a result.
Let me lay out why this is such a travesty. When the Bush
Administration took office, the nation was in the proverbial days of
milk and honey. The budget was experiencing a third year of record
surplus and most of us in Congress were elated with the prospect of
putting a permanent lockbox on the Social Security Trust Fund--all
while keeping the nation's budget in the black at least until 2011.
Those of us who adhere to budgets, know that you always have to save
money for a

[[Page H1551]]

rainy day, but apparently Republicans skipped this life lesson. In
fact, they managed to squander the $521 billion surplus and shepherd
through $1.7 trillion in irresponsible tax cuts. We are now facing a
deficit of $521 billion this year and debt accumulation of $1.2
trillion over the next two years. I think the American people agree
that these numbers do not reflect sound fiscal policy.
First, this 5-year Republican budget as reported, would result in a
deficit of $377.7 billion in FY 2005, with a promise to cut the deficit
in half in five years to $235.2 billion in FY09--with no prospect of
balancing over its life. It is also a short-sighted budget, one that
does not take into account many costs, like fixing the AMT. If this
were a traditional 10-year budget, the numbers would be different and
the outlook even more bleak. The Republican and Bush five year budgets
are very disingenuous, since ten-year numbers would show even further
deficits, having to account for the retirement of many Baby Boomers
starting in 2008. If they were 10 year budgets, they would reflect the
CBO estimates, that over the next 10 years, their tax cuts will
actually cost our country over $3 trillion.
Second, the Republican budget includes a reconciliation directive to
the Ways and Means Committee to approve $138 billion in tax cuts over
five years--making nearly all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent.
We should not consider extending tax cuts, while we are considering the
budget reconciliation legislation--especially when extending these tax
cuts will not result in a better economy in the foreseeable future.
Third, the Republican budget caps placed in the bill will ensure that
the steep cuts in domestic discretionary spending, outside of homeland
security, remain permanent. I should mention that this budget also cuts
numerous discretionary domestic programs, most of which are in
education. The sleight of hand in this budget, is that the budget caps
will not be used to restore funding to these programs in the out years,
but to pay for the tax cuts for those who don't need them. Also, any
subsequent entitlement increases under the Republican budget one-sided
pay-go rules, have to be offset in the current year by decreased
spending in a domestic spending bill. The tax cuts, however, do not
need to be offset. This sounds very unfair to me and leads me to just
one conclusion. This budget seems, by design, to hurt those who need
our help the most.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is inherently unbalanced. It cuts
critical domestic spending by over $120 billion, while increasing
defense spending by over $1 trillion. It cuts education, LIHEAP, WIC,
child care, Medicaid, veterans' healthcare, and environmental
protection, just to name a few. It jeopardizes Social Security by
further extending tax cuts and it provides slipshod protection of our
troops by not accounting for the current war efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It also jeopardizes teacher quality and training and
ensures the ``No Child Left Behind'' Act, will be left behind by
billions of dollars from its authorized funding level. How are students
expected to meet the stringent accountability standards under the Act
on a shoe string budget?
In contrast, the Spratt alternative budget focuses national 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. These priorities include education, health
care, our veterans, homeland security, and an extension of middle-class
tax cuts--all while achieving a balanced budget in 8 years.

It would immediately repeal tax cuts for the upper income brackets,
the top 1 percent of income earners, who own 33 percent of the nation's
wealth--and extend middle/low income tax cuts to help the bottom 50
percent, who account for just 3 percent of our nation's wealth.
Mr. Chairman, the Democratic 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
in the sacrifice that is required to strengthen our economy and put us
on better fiscal footing.
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 this responsibility aside.
The Republican-proposed $1.4 trillion tax cut is a reckless measure to
pursue, especially as we face war in Iraq and a continued war on
terror--to defend our homeland and hometowns.
The Republicans and the President continue to claim unabashedly, 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
over a trillion in deficits over the next ten years, after completely
depleting the surplus of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds.
In the end, one can only conclude that the Republican budget balances
itself on the backs of Americans who can least afford it.
Lastly on tax cuts, I must point out that tax cuts of 3 years ago did
not prevent the loss of over 3 million private sector jobs--a more
drastic tax cut today, as proposed in the Republican budget, likewise
will not eliminate the resulting almost 6 percent high unemployment
rate. It is completely implausible to think that tax cuts--80 percent
of which goes to the top 1 percent--for those earning over $250,000 or
more, will revitalize and restore our economy. They cannot and will
not. These tax cuts have shown themselves to be a failure and we should
not continue with this disingenuous fiscal policy.
Mr. Chairman we have many challenges facing us in this Congress and
in our country. We are one year into a war that often and rightfully
diverts attention away from important debates. I would be remiss if I
did not salute our men and women in the military who are fighting to
defend our country--I support them wholeheartedly and pray for their
safe return home. I hope we can restore the deep cuts to veterans
benefits and health plans found Republican budget before our troops
return.
In closing, the American people need to know that the Republican
budget plan is an obstacle that keeps us from meeting the human needs
challenges of our Nation. The Spratt Democratic Budget alternative is a
more fiscally sound, reality-based proposal--with priorities that
reflect the needs of all Americans.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the
balanced Democratic Budget Substitute.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Spratt budget substitute
and strong opposition to the underlying Republican budget resolution.
Rhode Islanders are facing challenges on many fronts. Unfortunately,
the budget proposed by House Resolutions does little to ease the burden
of those currently facing education, health care, and housing
obstacles. Worse yet, the Republicans want to continue to borrow more
and more money from future generations to pay for their failed economic
policies. Under the Republican budget, the obstacles we face today will
only grow in the coming years.
Working within the horrible fiscal confines that the country has been
boxed into by the majority, the Spratt substitute manages to balance
the budget in 8 years, cut taxes for all taxpayers, and provide
realistic funding for education, veterans health care, Medicaid,
infrastructure and homeland security, which were all shortchanged by
the Republicans. The Spratt substitute has a better bottom line than
the Republican budget every year, so there will be lower deficits,
smaller interest payments, and a less national debt. In addition, the
Spratt substitutes restores PAYGO rules to ensure that spending is not
increased or revenue is not decreased without fully offsetting the new
costs. Simply put, the Spratt substitute is better than the Republican
plan in every way.
As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and the
Armed Services Committee, I have been steadfast in my support for a
strong national defense and a well-equipped Homeland Security
infrastructure. Since September 11th, the government has worked daily
to protect the American people from another attack. Unfortunately, this
budget does little to provide for our men and women in uniform, or to
bolster safety within our borders. The Spratt substitute fully funds
our defense requirements and reserves money to ensure our troops in
Iraq have the support needed. Veterans are not forgotten, and their
health care programs are funded $1.3 billion above the Republican plan.
In addition, the Spratt substitute contains more than $5 billion in
additional homeland security funding for port security and first
responders.
The budget before us does little to strengthen our country or offer
Americans an equal opportunity to succeed. These difficult times
require shared sacrifice to get our country back on track. We are
asking our service members and first responders to sacrifice as they
protect us at home and abroad. We are asking our working families to
sacrifice as they try to weather the difficult economy and the job.
This budget gives millionaires a ``No Need to Sacrifice'' pass while
paying for tax cuts with money borrowed from future generations.
I believe in lower taxes, but I also believe in providing tax cuts
for those who are in the greatest need. But under the Republican
budget, those earning low to moderate incomes are passed over again in
favor of benefits for the wealthy. One key point the majority continues
to ignore is that they are increasing the ``debt tax.'' Currently,
every man,

[[Page H1552]]

woman, and child in America owes more than $1,100 in interest alone on
the national debt. Under the Republican plan, this increases to nearly
$1,750 per person by 2009. These interest payments do not provide
security, education, or health care: they are a product of
mismanagement of taxpayer funds.
Deficit spending has stymied job growth is plaguing our economy. No
Rhode Islander would write a check without sufficient funds to cash
that check. Neither should the government.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Spratt budget
substitute and opposing the underlying Republican plan.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend
my remarks.
I rise today in opposition to the Republican Budget Resolution and in
support of the Democratic substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I have one simple point or better yet one simple
question to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Where is the money to assure the best possible education for our
children? Clearly not in this budget.
The Republican Budget:
Represents the smallest increase in education spending in 9 years.
It cuts $1.4 billion in critical education programs.
It freezes Disabilities Education Act and Pell Grant leaving
individuals billions of dollars short in funding.
It drastically cuts funding for Perkins Loans.
It cuts vocational education by 25 percent.
The GOP budget provides $479 million more to education. Even if these
funds were devoted entirely to No Child Left Behind, it would still
leave the GOP budget almost $9 billion short of the amount promised.
Gentlemen, we are dealing with our children here, our future. You
talk about Leaving no child behind . . . well let me tell you: You
haven't even picked them up.
Unfortunately we have limited time allotted to discuss this proposal.
Because I have only scratched the surface of the failure of a budget
designed by the Republicans solely to give tax breaks to those that
need it the least.
I'm sorry but this is not the Democratic vision of America, Democrats
do not try to balance the budget on the backs of children, veterans,
the elderly or the uninsured.
Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Republican Budget and in support of the Spratt Substitute.
The budget is a statement of our nation's priorities. Unfortunately,
the Republican budget represents misplaced priorities and misguided
policies that hurt America's working families. In contrast, the Spratt
Democratic Substitute offers a fiscally responsible approach that cuts
the budget deficit and invests in the American people and our economic
growth.
The Republican budget continues this Administration's dangerously
reckless fiscal policies that have turned record budget surpluses into
record budget deficits in just three years. The Republican budgets have
turned a projected ten-year surplus of $5.6 trillion into a projected
deficit of $2.9 trillion, a reversal of $8.5 trillion. The massive
national debt these deficits produce will be a crushing burden on
future generations and hampers economic growth.
Republican economic policies have utterly failed America's working
families. Under this current Administration, the economy has lost three
million private sector jobs, the worst performance since the Hoover
Administration. This Republican budget resolution proposes more of the
same failed economic policies and shortchanges important investment
priorities.
Our first priority should be to invest more in education. As the
former Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools, my top
priority is to provide necessary funding for our schools.
Unfortunately, this Administration continues to cut the President's own
education reform initiative, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. This
budget resolution cuts $8.8 billion from NCLB, and over the first three
years of the new law, the Republicans are cutting NCLB by $26 billion.
The Republican budget spends the entire $1.0 trillion Social Security
surplus from 2005 to 2009, despite their repeated promises not to spend
a dime of it. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan recently
testified to Congress Social Security benefits will have to be cut to
make the Republican tax cuts permanent as they are now proposing. I
strongly oppose cutting Social Security.
The Republican budget also provides less than is needed for veterans,
fails to protect the environment, puts Medicaid and SCHIP at risk, cuts
homeland security and underfunds key domestic priorities.
In contrast, the Democratic plan balances the budget within eight
years through realistic policy choices that protect funding for key
services. The Spratt budget also has a better bottom line than the
Republican budget every year, meaning a smaller national debt and fewer
resources wasted paying interest on the national debt. Chronic
Republican deficits crowd out private borrowing, run up interest rates,
and slow economic growth. As a fiscal conservative, I have always
supported balanced budgets and responsible fiscal management.
The Spratt Substitute provides $2.1 billion more for education than
the Republican budget for 2005 and $9.8 billion over the next five
years. The Democratic budget also provides $3.7 billion in mandatory
funding to make up the current shortfall in funding for Pell grants and
additional funding to make college loans cheaper for students.
The Spratt plan provides meaningful budget enforcement tools (PAYGO)
to protect Social Security, provides middle class tax relief and
invests in real job creation. The Democratic plan provides more for
homeland security, veterans and the environment and protects public
health.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the
Republican budget resolution and for the Spratt Democratic Substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. 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 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 194,
noes 232, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 91]

AYES--194

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
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
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
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
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)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
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
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--232

[[Page H1553]]

Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
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
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Abercrombie
Ford
Lucas (KY)
McInnis
Quinn
Tanner
Tauzin

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.

{time} 1724

Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. OTTER and Ms. DUNN 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.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order for a period of final general debate
on the concurrent resolution. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
Mr. NUSSLE. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is going to go first, then myself,
then the minority leader and then the Speaker, is I think how we are
going to wrap up the debate. So I will allow the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina to begin the closing debate.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would allow me to do
something he did earlier, and that is acknowledge the indefatigable
work that our staff did. Tom Kahn, my chief of staff, Joe Minarik, and
the staff members in back of the aisle, Sarah Abernathy, Arthur Burris,
Linda Bywaters, Dan Ezrow, Jennifer Friedman, Jason Lumia, Sheila
McDowell, Diana Meredith, Kimberly Overbeek, Scott Russell, Andy
Smullian, Lisa Venus, Andrea Weathers, Jason Venner and Allison
Colflesh, they have worked extremely hard over the last several weeks
to bring this to fruition, and I am grateful for all of their support.
By the same token, I know the chairman feels the same way about his
staff.
Mr. NUSSLE. If the gentleman would permit me, I would say the same
about the majority staff and all of our staff, and the members of our
floor staff that are here that have endured the discussion over the
last number of days. I hope they got their ``millions'' and
``billions'' all in the right places. We appreciate their help as we
moved through this debate
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate for which I am grateful
because the gravity of this problem calls for it.
I wish all our effort could have been devoted to the search for
common ground for a better solution; but I am afraid, as we bring it to
a close, we find ourselves diverging more than converging. That is
unfortunate, because the longer we put off the resolution of this
problem, the more difficult it is going to become.
Here is the situation in a nutshell: the government will run a
deficit this year of $521 billion. The President and our Republican
colleagues claim that their budget will cut that deficit in half over
the next 5 years; but, pardon me, I doubt that.
For one thing, on the spending side, they leave out any supplemental
funding beyond 2005 for Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish they were right
about that, but I doubt it. On the revenue side, they leave out any fix
for the Alternative Minimum Tax, even though the Treasury Department
tells us it will soon affect 30 million tax filers. So it is
unrealistic to project revenues without it.
Worse still, after 2009, the Republican budget quits; and that is
when it really gets tough. That is when I am afraid the budget gets
worse. They leave us expecting that the budget is linear and that over
time the deficit will be reduced, the half that is supposedly left in,
but I do not think it will work out.
Let me just show you a few charts. At the expense of maybe showing
you some things you have already seen, the first chart is a roller
coaster. What happened when Bill Clinton came to office, President
Clinton came to office with a $290 billion deficit. He put it in
surplus by the year 2000 by $236 billion. It took really three budget
agreements to bring it to resolution like that. Then in the last 4
years, you see this precipitous decline.
Now, I know that recession, terrorists, and war have all taken their
toll on the economy and the budget; but there were conscious,
deliberate choices made that caused this budget to skyrocket down.
There in another graphic portrayal is what happened. This is the
Clinton administration building up surpluses, moving from deficit to
surplus. Every year the bottom line of the budget is better. And here
is the Bush administration, every year it gets worse and worse.
This chart shows on the far left side where we are today, looking at
a deficit this year of $521 billion, a swing in the budget over the
last 4 years of $760 billion, a phenomenal reversal of fiscal
discipline.
Despite the claims the President makes that he will cut this in half,
when we make what we regard as basic, realistic, politically inevitable
adjustments to his budget, this is where you end up in 2014, not with a
diminished deficit, but about where we started out, $502 billion as
opposed to $521 billion. It treads water, at best.

{time} 1730

The problem does not go away. It does not go away with growth; it
does not go away with anything but an effort to bring it to healing.
Here is part of the problem. We have heard the Republicans say here
that tax cuts have not done all of that. That is true. Part of the
problem is that these surpluses were overestimated by 50 percent to
start with. Now, when we look at the size of their tax cuts, the wedge
taken out of the tax cuts, by the tax cuts out of the remaining
surplus, that is about 50 to 55 percent. It is about half the problem
that we are looking at today.
Here is another aspect of the problem right here. The tax cut agenda
is $3.77 trillion over the next 10 years. This is pending, enacted tax
cuts already. On top of that, we are increasing defense over the same
period of time by about $1.3 trillion over inflation.
That is why, as this chart right here shows, the big hump is the cost
of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we extend it, taper it off, and it
concludes up here, we will add about $1.5 trillion over and above
inflation to defense between 2002 and 2011, more than we anticipated
spending in current services.
I am not saying it is not needed. What I am saying is, when the
Republicans say we have to bring spending to heel, we have to bring
spending under control, this is where it is occurring, as this next
graph shows. As these three bar graphs show, over the last 4 fiscal
years, 90 to 95 percent of the increase in spending over and above
current services has occurred in these accounts, and they are not
likely to be reined in.
Mr. Chairman, we are not coming to grips with the budget today in
this resolution. Unfortunately, the resolution avoids bold strokes and
it will take bold strokes, believe me, to untie this Gordian knot.

[[Page H1554]]

If we want to strike a bold stroke, if we want to do something about
the deficit, if we want to do something about saving and making solvent
Social Security, vote against this budget resolution. That is the
single best thing we can do for deficit reduction and for putting our
country back on fiscal track. Vote against it, send us back to the
drawing board. Let us come to the House with something worthy of
passage, something that will put us back on a path to a balanced
budget. This resolution will not do it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we need a budget blueprint in order to build for the
future. We cannot have the carpenters show up without a blueprint. A
mess would ensue, as one might imagine. We cannot have the
subcontractors do their work. We cannot have any of the folks who need
to construct the house show up for work without a blueprint, and that
is what a budget provides. It provides the framework so that all of the
rest of the fine-tuning and detail work can be accomplished.
Even before the end of last year, we knew what priorities were going
to have to be part of this budget; they were becoming very clear.
Spending had to be kept under control, there was no question. When we
talked to colleagues, when we talked to constituents, no matter where
we went, controlling spending had to be a hallmark of whatever budget
plan came together.
We heard, too, that growth of our economy was vital to getting our
country back on its feet. So we came together with all of the
extraordinary circumstances that our country has been dealt over the
last number of years and we knew we had to go to work.
We had a growth deficit in our economy, and we dealt with it by
reducing taxes and a progrowth policy which has given us 6 months. The
last 6 months were the fastest growing 6 months in over 20 years,
because tax relief is working, Americans are being put back into
working positions. They are spending their money much more wisely than
the government can for them, and America is growing again.
We also learned painfully about the defense deficit, about the
homeland security deficit in our country, and we went about the work to
make sure that America was protected, and we did it most often in a
bipartisan way, but most often led by Republicans to ensure that
America was strong once again.
We also had a Medicare deficit, because a program that was invented
in the 1960s was not keeping up with the times. Americans were not
receiving drug benefits or simple prevention systems under health care
programs that were invented to help them. So we changed that Medicare
program to provide them the first-ever prescription drug benefit, put
in as part of our blueprint that we have here today. So that we filled
in that gap, that Medicare deficit.
As a result of much of that work, yes, we have a Federal budget
deficit that we also have to go to work on. But we have the ability to
accomplish deficit control.
My friends on the other side have learned the words to the song of
fiscal responsibility, but they do not know the music. The music is
controlling spending. That is what we have to do. The only thing that
we pay for in Washington is spending. What is paid for when we pay for
taxes is paid for out of the pockets of Americans, out of their hard-
earned money that they earn out of small businesses, out of farmers,
out of ranchers.
When we talk about paying for tax cuts, the only people who pay for
taxes in this country are Americans, and in order to get our budget
deficit under control, the way we control it is by growing the economy
and controlling spending.
Spending has been out of control, and we can see from this chart that
recent spending every year in the last 3 years has grown by 6 percent.
We are asking that we begin to hold the line. We are not saying cut. We
are not saying eliminate. We are saying hold the line.
Yes, the decisions will be difficult, there is no question. We have
carved out items that are important such as increases in veterans'
spending, 1.2. We allow for an increase, even over what the President
requested for veterans, of $1.2 billion.
We have increases in education. We have increases in here for
homeland security and for national defense, and we ask that we hold the
line in other accounts in order to get Federal spending under control.
Mr. Chairman, the three hallmarks of our budget are strength, growth,
and opportunity. First, because if America is not strong, America is
not free, and we have got to protect our country; otherwise, the rest
of this discussion on the budget is just a bunch of numbers that do not
make any difference.
Second, America has got to continue to grow, because to remain the
most prosperous superpower Nation, America's economy has to be able to
continue the growth that we have seen and the job creation that we have
enjoyed.
But we also know that our greatness comes from the unlimited
opportunities that America's freedom provides, which is why opportunity
is the third hallmark of our budget.
This is all done within a framework which is fiscally responsible.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that we have a framework to move our country
forward to provide strength, growth, and opportunity, and I ask my
colleagues today to support it so we can get our country back on a
fiscally responsible path.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
for yielding me this time and for his tremendous leadership in
presenting to this House of Representatives, to this Congress, a budget
that is values-based and that is fiscally sound. I join my colleague in
commending the members of his committee and his staff for helping to
put together this very, very important proposal to this House.
I also want to thank the members of the Black Caucus and Progressive
Caucus for their very, very smart work that they did to bring a values-
based budget to the floor, and the members of the Blue Dog Caucus for
what they have done. Their tremendous leadership on fiscal soundness is
something that is important to this Congress, important to our caucus,
and important to our country. Thank you to the Blue Dogs for infusing
fiscal soundness back into the Congress of the United States. It seems
to be a priority of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who
had been known as deficit hawks, but have become endangered species
when it comes to that fact.
Mr. Chairman, this budget that we are talking about today should be a
statement of our national values. Every year we say this on the floor.
It should be a statement of our coming together to build a budget, a
blueprint for the future on how we prepare a better future for our
children by way of their education and access to health care, how it
grows the economy to create jobs, how it protects our environment and,
of course, provides for our national defense. And, today, that includes
homeland security. But for the fourth time in 4 years, the Republicans
in Congress and President Bush, indeed, have sought to pass a budget
that is nothing less than an assault on our national values.
The American people expect and deserve, and the Democrats have
proposed, a budget that reflects the urgent priorities of Americans'
everyday needs. Good jobs, better access to health care, the best
possible education for their children, a safe and clean environment,
and a secure America. Instead, because of distorted Republican
priorities and their reckless economic policies, we are considering a
Republican budget here today that will have serious consequences for
the American people. Instead of a blueprint of positive initiatives for
the future, it is a blueprint for disaster.
The Republican economic record of the past 3 years is as shameful as
it is clear. In 3 years, Republican economic policies have lost nearly
3 million jobs and added more than $3 trillion to the national debt.
The gentleman from South Carolina has very eloquently and in a very
detailed way talked about what has happened from surplus in the Clinton
years to deficit in the

[[Page H1555]]

Bush years. Unbelievably, this budget continues that misguided course.
It does not grow the economy.
The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget talked
about growth. It does not grow the economy to create jobs here at home
or, in fact, to stop jobs from going overseas. It is a historic budget
in that it has the largest budget deficit in history, $521 billion in
this year alone. It fails to put our fiscal house in order by failing
to reach balance.
And what is the impact of this budget deficit, in addition to
mortgaging our children's future?
The National Association for Business Economics said that the main
threat to the economy, the main threats to the economy are the soaring
budget deficits and the sluggish job market, and the UCLA Andersen
Forecast said job growth will not match labor force growth this year
because new hiring will be constrained, because of weaker consumer
spending and bulging government deficits. This lack of job growth and
this deficit are related. Instead of being a statement of our values,
as I have said before, this Republican budget is reckless and the
consequences are severe.
But you be the judge.
On education, do you consider it a statement of your values to give
tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year and cutting over $9
billion from No Child Left Behind? Is that a statement of our values in
this Congress?
On health care, this budget takes away more than $1 billion from
States' Children's Health Insurance Programs, from the SCHIP program
over $1 billion, and cuts $2.2 billion from Medicare. Is it a statement
of our values to give tax cuts, bigger tax cuts to people making over
$1 million a year and increasing the number of uninsured in America
with these cuts to more than 1.6 million in this year alone? I do not
think so.
Is it a statement of your values to leave our veterans behind? And
the military, the promises to leave no soldier behind on the
battlefield, and when they come home we just leave our veterans behind?

{time} 1745

So this is not enough to talk with sacrifice and valor and patriotism
of our military and our veterans. We must not fail to meet their needs.
So is it a statement of your values to give tax cuts to people making
over $1 million a year and cutting $1.6 billion from veterans services,
as this budget does?
The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget does not do
that. It rearranges the spending on defense in the budget to meet the
needs of the veterans and the needs of their survivors. I thank the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his values-based budget.
On homeland security, I was absolutely, and I am rarely surprised,
rarely surprised around here, but it was really astonishing to hear the
distinguished chairman talking about the homeland security funding in
this budget. This budget cuts $850 million from the already meager
proposal that President Bush made in his budget. It cuts President
Bush's budget on homeland security. Is that a statement of our values?
I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for adding $5
billion over and above what the President had in his budget to reverse
some of the cuts in police and fire funding that we need to protect our
homeland.
Mr. Chairman, some people were talking about music and words, and we
have the words and they have the music and all the rest. There is a
song, ``America The Beautiful,'' and there is a sentence that I find
haunting and inspiring as a Member of Congress. It says, ``O beautiful
for patriots' dreams that sees beyond the years.''
That is what our responsibility is here. We are supposed to be here
to see beyond the years, to prepare a better future for our children;
and, indeed, it is our patriotic duty to have a budget that is balanced
and not again mortgaging their future, indebting them for generations
to come. And it is our patriotic duty to have a budget that reflects
our values, that we educate our children; indeed, nothing does more to
grow the economy than that. It is our patriotic duty to provide for our
children, their education, their health care, the economic security of
their families, including the pension security of their grandparents, a
safe environment for them to live and a secure America. But this budget
does not do that. It is not beautiful for patriots' dreams.
The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget is.
Led by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), House
Democrats offered a budget today that spoke to the American people's
aspirations for good jobs, better access to health care, the best
possible education for our children. The gentleman from South
Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget rose to meet the challenge of homeland
security, to really meet that challenge. And the Spratt budget would
not add one penny to the deficit. It is fiscally sound and patriotic.
Mr. Chairman, the budget that the Republicans have before us does not
have a values base. It does not have fiscal soundness, and it should
not have your support.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the
House.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Nussle
budget and in opposition to the various tax and spend alternatives that
we have heard from the other side of the aisle.
The Nussle budget is the best alternative if you want to keep the
economy growing, if you want to keep the country secure, and if you
want to keep spending under control. If you want to keep the government
growing, if you want to keep the tax burden rising, if you want to keep
jobs flowing overseas, and if you want to make America less secure, you
can find a Democratic budget alternative that is more to your liking.
But, once again, as we do every year, we have two radically different
visions for the future of America presented in the budget debate.
The budget is important because it is in the budget that we make the
choices in how we choose to govern in this country. The Nussle budget
calls for responsible government. And I guess when you talk about
responsible, maybe we do talk about values and we talk about values of
not spending beyond our means, and we talk about values of protecting
our children's future. It says that we should not raise taxes just as
the economy is finally getting its footing. It fully funds the war on
terror and our homeland defense; and, incidentally, it raises homeland
defense, not cuts homeland defense, 9.5 percent, so that our troops
have the equipment and the training and the pay and the ammunition and
the support of this Congress to keep this Nation secure.
The 9/11 Commission is now examining what happened in the days
leading up to the worst attacks against America in our Nation's
history. And one inescapable conclusion is that we did not invest
enough money in our intelligence community in the late 1990s so that
they could do the job to protect America.
The leaders of the Democrat minority voted consistently to cut
intelligence spending throughout the 1990s as they voted to slash
defense spending. And that anti-defense, anti-intelligence philosophy
lives on in one of the Democratic alternatives that we have before us
today. We will not make that mistake again. We should do everything
within our power to make certain that what happened on September 11,
2001, never happens in this country again.
The Nussle budget calls for spending restraints in the rest of the
budget. I think that is appropriate, and some people may even call that
a value. We no longer live in the era of surpluses because of the war,
because of terrorism, because of the downturn in the economy; and we do
have a big deficit. We need to spend less money and this budget spends
less money.
We disagree with our Democratic colleagues who by tradition want to
spend more money here in Washington and raise taxes to do it. And when
we say we want to cut waste, fraud and abuse, they say that we are
gutting the programs that they care about the most. The Democrats do
not believe that government wastes any money or that the government can
become any more efficient or that higher productivity for government
employees is a good thing.

[[Page H1556]]

They will defend the bureaucracy with every rhetorical weapon in
their arsenal. We challenge the bureaucracy to do more with less. We
ask them to weed out waste and fraud and abuse.
We believe that a bloated Federal Government is bad for the economy,
bad for the taxpayers, and bad for the fiscal future of this Nation.
Our Democratic friends want you to believe that their tax increases
will hit the richest Americans. You heard it 15 times in the last
speech. Why should we not tax the million-dollar earners? Well, I will
tell you who they are. The million-dollar earners are the small
business owners, they are the entrepreneurs, they are the job creators,
and they hit the job seekers the hardest.
When you go to my district in the Fox Valley of Illinois, it is the
small business people, it is the small entrepreneurs that are creating
jobs in this country. They are doing it today. We do not want to
handcuff them.
The Democrats like to talk about how they help the jobless, but their
budget policies will keep the jobless from getting jobs. Higher taxes
kill jobs. In fact, 95 percent of the entrepreneurs who file as
Subchapter S Corporations or partnerships will be hit by the Democrats'
taxes, while 58 percent of small business owners would also be hit.
These higher taxes would make it harder to hire that extra worker or
expand that business to keep competitive with the Chinese or the
Europeans.
In this economic environment, the last thing we need is a policy that
kills jobs.
This is a familiar debate. The Nussle budget promotes a stronger
defense, a stronger economy and a smaller and smarter government. The
various Democratic alternatives promote bigger government, a bigger tax
burden for America's job creators, and a bigger fiscal mess down the
road.
In this debate we have heard it time and time again, it is not really
a debate of policy. It is really a debate of philosophy. It is a debate
that asks the question, can government spend people's money better and
can government make better decisions for our children and ourselves or
can people spend their money better and can people make better
decisions for themselves?
Vote for the Nussle budget and vote to keep America strong and
secure.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today against the Republican
budget and for the Democratic and CBC alternative budgets.
The members on the other side of the aisle describe their budget as
one that ``recognizes the fundamental obligations of the Federal
Government.'' It does no such thing. In fact, it is nothing short of a
political document that turns a blind eye to our obligations.
The House Republican budget is indefensible. House Republicans
followed the lead of President Bush and passed a budget that goes after
the poor, the homeless, and the elderly. Republicans value more tax
cuts for the rich over meeting the needs of senior citizens, working
families, the unemployed and the majority of Americans. Medicaid and
Section 8 vouchers are slashed so they can pay for missile defense,
subsidies to Halliburton and tax cuts for the wealthy.
The Republican budget cuts and underfunds programs that have been
proven to strengthen our country and provide opportunities for the
future. The so-called ``education President's'' own No Child Left
Behind is underfunded by $8.8 billion. While college costs have
skyrocketed, the GOP budget keeps the Pell Grant maximum at the same
level it was three years ago. There is no money for the Family
Opportunity Act, which would provide health insurance for disabled
children. It tells my committee, Energy and Commerce, to make $2.2
billion in Medicaid cuts over the next five years, jeopardizing health
and long term care for 52 million Americans.
Section 8, low-income heating assistance of LIHEAP, child care
assistance--programs that help people pay the bills and keep roofs over
their head in tough times like these--are cut by $3.7 billion. We could
see 250,000 people lose affordable housing this year under the GOP
budget. Veterans' health care is underfunded again, this time by $1.3
billion below what the Republican Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee recommended. Over the next five years, the Republican budget
will cut these and other domestic programs by $36.9 billion. At a time
when so many families are worried about jobs, health care, and
education, this budget puts their future on the chopping block.
Parents cannot afford to send their children to college. Seniors
cannot afford their housing, heating bills or medicine. Veterans have
to wait for months to see a physician at the VA. Teachers still have to
buy their own school supplies. Democrats offered a clear alternative to
the destructive plan Republicans pushed through Congress. We will
continue to fight for a fair budget that will fund America's true
priorities.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the House-passed Fiscal Year
2005 Budget Resolution marks another step forward in our efforts to
increase the level of funding reserved for America's brave veterans.
The budget will increase VA funding by $9.3 billion over last year,
which was preceded by an increase of $9.1 billion for the previous two
years. In addition, the budget excludes new increases in prescription
drug copayments and VA enrollment fees. Even so, I would have liked to
have seen more done for our growing veterans population, and I will do
all I can in the coming months to do just that.
As you know, I signed a letter last week requesting the level of
funding for veterans be increased to match that of the Senate-passed
budget. I have now received a letter from VA Secretary Anthony Principi
certifying that the House budget plan provides sufficient funds for the
VA to continue providing high quality care in the coming fiscal year.
Nonetheless, I pledge to work with the House-Senate conferees to
increase the final funding level for veterans in the budget, and will
push my colleagues on the appropriations committee to provide
additional increases for our nation's retired servicemen and women.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, the President and majority party in Congress
have presented budgets that continue down the path of fiscal
recklessness and misplaced priorities. Their plan continues to fail
working families, continues to fail seniors, continues to fail
veterans, and continues to fail children by expanding already record
deficits that will hamper economic growth and burden future
generations.
Perhaps most disturbing is that the majority has no plan to return
the federal government's books to balance. While they claim that their
budget plan will cut in half the current record deficits that their
economic policies helped create, realistic projections, including pages
in the President's own budget. show deficits as far as the eye can see
under their plan.
Their plan continues the downward fiscal spiral of our government at
exactly the wrong moment in our nation's history when we have 80
million baby boomers rapidly approaching retirement age and starting to
enter the Social Security and Medicare systems. Instead of the
irresponsible budget before us, we should be trying to practice fiscal
discipline to get the nation on sound fiscal footing in anticipation of
that demographic time bomb going off and protect the monies in the
Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
This requires making tough choices on spending and revenue, and it
requires us to move away from the status quo toward a new plan that
helps working families, meets the security needs of our country,
protects important programs here at home, and finds balance within a
specified time frame.
The alternative budget proposal offered by Mr. Spratt meets this
challenge and sets a new course toward fiscal sanity. It includes more
funding for programs important to people in western Wisconsin such as
education, veterans' health care, environmental protection, and first
responders. It fully funds our national defense, and provides necessary
tax relief for working families. By reducing a portion of the
individual tax cuts for those making over $500,000 yearly income, the
Spratt alternative provides working families relief from the marriage
penalty tax and extends the child tax credit.
In addition, the Democratic alternative returns the federal budget to
balance in eight years--something the Republican budget never does. It
supports important budget enforcement measures that were present in the
1990's and kept government on track to record surpluses. The Republican
leadership has continually refused to reinstate these important, common
sense enforcement tools that simply require offsets for spending and
revenue changes in law that would otherwise increase the budget
deficit. These so-called ``pay-as-you-go'' provisions require
government to pay its bills and stop the fiscal bleeding.
Budgets are all about priorities. The alternative budget proposal I
support makes education a priority by providing $51.4 billion more than
the President's budget over 10 years, helping local school districts
meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind and making college more
affordable for all students. It makes veterans health care a priority
by providing $6.6 billion more than the majority over five years,
meeting the request of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and veterans'
organizations. And it makes job creation and worker training a priority
while proving tax relief for working families.
Let us pass a sensible, fiscally responsible budget that protects
important American values so that years from now, we can look back and
say, yes, we had to make some tough decisions, but they were the right
decisions

[[Page H1557]]

under the right circumstances, and American families are the primary
beneficiaries as a consequence. I urge my colleagues' support of the
Democratic alternative.
Mr. JIM DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, our debate this afternoon is
in part over our disagreement about the best way to address the ever
growing debt and now record deficit. Despite the many differences
enumerated this afternoon there are certain truths which must direct
our decisions:
The Federal debt now tops over 7 trillion dollars. This amounts to
over $24,000 worth of debt per U.S. resident. That's an awesome burden
to place on the backs of our children.
This year, U.S. taxpayers will waste $156 billion on interest
payments on the federal debt--money that should have helped support our
troops in the field, students in the classroom and seniors relying on
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And as this deficit spirals out
of control, our government's excessive borrowing will deal a blow to
our economy by forcing up interest rates for small businesses,
homebuyers and students who rely on loans.
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has highlighted the
risks of sustained deficits saying, ``History suggests that an
abandonment of fiscal discipline will eventually push up interest
rates, crowd out capital spending, lower productivity growth, and force
harder choices upon us in the future.''
The U.S. federal deficit is now among the highest in the
industrialized world, and our debt level is fast approaching those of
other major industrial countries. With the federal debt now close to 40
percent of the Gross Domestic Product, deficits will likely put
pressure on the U.S. dollar.
As a member of the New Democrat Coalition I have supported a fiscally
responsible deficit reduction plan to balance the budget in 10 years,
suspend recent tax cuts for the top two tiers of earners, eliminate
corporate tax loopholes, prioritize spending and revive budget
enforcement mechanisms, such as the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) provisions
which Senate Democrats and Republicans passed to force the government
to live within its means.
The Senate plan sent alarms through this chamber last week because
the Senate Budget Resolution includes genuine Pay-As-You-Go provisions
that can bring fiscal responsibility to the budget. The House Budget
Committee's version betrays the budgetary spirit of Pay-As-You-Go
because it enforces budgetary constraints on entitlement programs but
not tax cuts. Tell me Mr. Chairman how this unbalanced approach to the
budget will eventually lead to a balanced budget.
The President visited my district a few weeks ago and during a speech
about the economy never once did he mention the $7 trillion dollar debt
or the record deficit this country now faces. Never once did he mention
the potential for harm and devastation that rising interest rates pose
for small businesses and exporters in my district. And not once did he
mention any one of the 2.6 million jobs lost throughout the country
since 2000. We cannot continue to ignore the implications of our fiscal
irresponsibility.
By failing to mention these concerns, the President has forgone all
responsibility for addressing them. So in closing, I urge my colleagues
to take up the responsibility thrown off by our leadership. Defeat the
Republican House Budget Resolution because it fails to implement
meaningful budgetary mechanisms that will bring this budget into
balance.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, the House Republicans should be ashamed
for once again producing a budget that assaults the health needs of our
most vulnerable citizens. In their annual attempt to slash needed
programs and funding the end result is clear--the safety net for our
Nation's health care will deteriorate and people will surely suffer.
With the economy in shambles and job opportunities plummeting,
American families are struggling to stay afloat right now. I can not
stand by and allow our Congress to abandon our Nation's families' need
for assistance with basic health care. We already are in a crisis
situation with over 43.6 million people uninsured nationwide. In my
home State of Texas, over 26 percent of our citizens, nearly 5 million
people are without health care.
The House Republican budget decimates Medicaid and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program SCHIP. It requires a $2.2 billion
cut in Medicaid funding, which will compromise the well being of over
500 million children, their parents, seniors, and disabled individuals.
This comes at a time when States are already in fiscal crisis,
resulting in nearly every State cutting their own Medicaid program by
slashing eligibility, cutting benefits, raising copayments and reducing
provider payments. Republicans have also tried to quietly allow $1
billion in SCHIP funding to expire on September 30, despite the
critical need to allocate that money towards its intended purpose of
providing heath care to needy children.
Prior Federal and State cuts to Medicaid and SCHIP have already
caused irreparable harm to families in Texas. Since SCHIP cuts in Texas
took place last September 1, enrollment for kids has dropped from over
507,000 children to 399,000. For those children fortunate to retain
some health coverage, they have had to endure the loss of all dental,
vision, and hospice benefits. How can this be considered acceptable?
How can our Federal legislators stand by and recommend cuts that will
compound this problem? It is a travesty that Republicans believe it is
OK to harm children under the guise of fiscal discipline.
Children aren't the only citizens whose healthcare is sacrificed
under the Republican budget though--our Nation's veterans are also
dishonored with these cuts to their earned benefits. Every major
veterans service organization, including the American Legion, Disabled
American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Paralyzed Veterans
of America has decried the now chronic under funding of their health
care, stating the Republican Budget is an insult tot heir military
service, and the health problems often caused by this service. Veterans
need our support now--to offer a budget that doesn't even keep pace
with inflation is illogical.
We came to Congress with a commitment to represent the basic needs of
American families. Now is the time to exercise fiscal discipline in a
common sense way--by rejecting tax cuts for wealthy corporations in
favor of sustaining and improving the health care of Americans in need.
It is simply a question of priorities--a question of choices. The
Democrats' budget answers this call from veterans, seniors and
children. The Republican budget doesn't. I know which budget my
constituents in East Texas want me to vote for. It is a clear choice--
it is the right thing to do.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the budget process in the House of
Representatives is a casualty of the increasingly extreme partisanship
of the Republican leadership and their obsession with reducing taxes
for those who need it the least. All the deep concern about deficit
spending that formerly influenced Republican policy making is of a
previous generation.
We now have the specter of the Republican budget causing another $1.3
trillion in national debt, while at the same time spending the entire
$1 trillion Social Security surplus, and cutting critical education,
environment, and veterans' programs.
The good news is that not even the Republican leadership will take
their budget resolution seriously. They will not follow this blueprint.
The bad news is that Republicans in Congress will combine the worst
of both worlds, grudgingly increasing the spending for some critical
programs, while at the same time continuing to pursue a reckless plan
of tax cuts that ignores the greatest needs of middle-class families.
The Alternative Minimum Tax, under the Republican plan, will tax tens
of millions of American families, penalizing them hundreds of billions
of dollars. For the Republicans, it is more important to give the
richest few Americans more tax cuts than rescue millions of middle
class families from the Alternative Minimum Tax.
This plan means we will have to fight harder to meet the needs of our
veterans and they will not be treated as generously as they would have
been treated under the Democratic Budget alternative.
It is my hope that with a presidential election looming and activism
from groups like the coalition of veterans who have denounced the
Republican budget proposal, we can return fiscal sanity to Washington.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this
resolution.
For 3 years, the administration and the Republican leadership have
insisted on speeding ahead with misguided fiscal and economic policies.
Ignoring all warning lights, they have taken us where we are today--
with an economy in the ditch and a budget deep in deficit.
And, despite their claims to the contrary, when you look at the full
picture you can see that this budget resolution offers only more of the
same.
For example, while they claim that they are putting the budget on
track to cut the deficit in half, that claim is based on the fact that
this budget covers only 5 years instead of the usual 10 years. When we
broaden the picture to cover the full decade, we see that the deficit
would be increasing again, meaning that we would be adding more and
more debt that would have to be repaid--with interest--by our children
and grandchildren. This is not a policy that deserves our support.
We should be changing course, not persisting in error. That is why I
supported the Spratt substitute, and why I also voted for the Blue Dog
substitute. Neither was perfect--and in particular I thought the Blue
Dog substitute would have not allowed for adequate investments in
science and research or for environmental protection--but each was
preferable to the Republican budget now before us.
In particular, the Democratic alternative proposed by Representative
Spratt would have fully protected Social Security while putting us

[[Page H1558]]

on the road to balance the budget in 2012, while running up a public-
debt burden that would be a full $34 billion less than the Republican
budget in the next 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this resolution will pass, because our
Republican colleagues have received their marching orders from the
White House, and are in moving in lockstep to endorse the Bush
administration's insistence that its economic and fiscal policies must
continue without change. I admire their discipline, but I am convinced
their judgment is faulty. I do not share their view, and I cannot
follow them as they take us further into the swamp.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the
Republican budget because it cuts funding for the Violence Against
Women Programs.
This funding 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 reduce these programs to $362 million, a cut 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.
Without full funding, thousands of women and children will not be
able to access the services they need to escape from domestic violence.
We need full funding for these programs to support this vulnerable
section of our population.
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. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it was just over a year ago that House
Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle said, ``I don't like deficits, I
don't want deficits, and I won't pretend deficits don't matter.'' Yet,
the budget we're considering today, which he drafted along with the
House Republican leadership, would make federal budget deficits worse,
not better. Relative to current law, the Republican resolution will
increase the deficit by $247 billion over the next 5 years and $1.6
trillion over the next 10 years.
The Republicans claim their budget will cut the deficit in half by
2009. That claim is only accurate if you ignore the fact that they use
every penny of the surplus Social Security revenue to mask the true
size of the deficit. Two years ago Chairman Nussle said, ``I don't know
how many times we have to say it: We are not going to spend the Social
Security and Medicare trust funds.'' Apparently, he's suffering from
amnesia because the reality this year is that the Republican party is
proposing to do exactly that, every single penny. If you don't count
the Social Security money the Republicans are proposing to borrow, the
deficit this year will be $550 billion and will be $471 billion in
2009, which is not exactly cutting the deficit in half.
Under the Republican plan, the debt held by the public, which
excludes Social Security, will rise from $4.4 trillion today to $5.9
trillion by 2009. The total federal debt will rise from $7.4 trillion
today to $10.5 trillion in 2009. The ``debt tax'' a family of four owes
on this debt will rise from $4,400 this year to $7,000 by 2009.
Interest payments on the debt will rise from $154 billion today to $296
billion by 2009, rising from approximately 7 percent of the total
federal budget to 11 percent.
This debt load is clearly not sustainable. It unfairly burdens our
children, grandchildren and their children with a debt they did not
accumulate. And, it puts our country more and more in hock to foreign
investors. The top two owners of U.S. government debt are Japan and
China. I do not believe it is in the interests of our country to
continue to run large budget deficits financed by China or Japan for
that matter.
You might think that in the face of these deficits, the House
Republican leadership would make a serious attempt to restore some
semblance of sanity to the federal budget. You would be wrong. But,
please don't think they are in denial about the scope of the problem.
They know exactly what they're doing. The debt escalation is a
conscious--though disingenuous--policy the Republican party is pursuing
in order to force drastic cuts in programs they don't like, but that
the American people support.

The House Republicans are willfully digging the budget hole deeper--
and are putting the financial stability of our country at risk--by
providing $153 billion in tax cuts through 2009, including maintaining
the repeal of the estate tax and reductions in capital gains and
dividend taxes, which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans,
those who make more than $300,000 a year. Over 10 years, the cost of
the tax cuts in the Republican budget will cost $1.2 trillion.
Now, my colleagues on other side of the aisle will protest that it is
spending, not tax cuts, that have driven the sudden appearance of
record budget deficits. While their rigid ideology may cause them to
believe that, it happens not to be true. Republicans have repeatedly
refused to acknowledge the obvious role tax cuts have played in the $9
trillion reversal in the 10-year budget projections since Bush took
office.
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, tax cuts
are responsible for 36 percent of the deterioration in the surplus,
spending increases are responsible for 28 percent, technical changes--
primarily lower revenue assumptions--are responsible for 27 percent,
and the recession is responsible for 9 percent.
Looking more in-depth at the aforementioned spending increases, the
vast majority of the spending increases were in the areas of defense
and homeland security, and were requested by President Bush. From 2001
to 2003, an average of 70 percent of the spending increases went to
defense, 14 percent went to homeland security, and 11 percent went to
NYC, aviation, and international aid.
When Republicans talk about reducing ``government spending,'' they
are generally referring to non-defense discretionary spending. While
Republicans act as if non-defense discretionary spending only includes
wasteful welfare programs, the reality is that it includes law
enforcement programs, education, veterans, environmental protection,
health care, Army Corps, energy, etc. Congress could eliminate the
entire non-defense, non-homeland security portion of the federal
budget--$391 billion--and the budget would still be in deficit by
several hundred billion dollars.
I agree there are federal programs that deserve to be eliminated or
reduced. I support reducing the space program, agriculture subsidies,
weapon systems that are irrelevant to meeting today's threats, and
foreign aid, among other areas.
However, spending restraint alone cannot solve the deficit problem.
Getting the federal budget under control will require discipline on
both spending and taxation. That is why the budgets I am supporting
today contain both spending and restraint and reductions in tax relief
to the wealthiest one percent of income earners and multinational
corporations.
I am also a cosponsor of stand-alone legislation, H.R. 3995, the
Aspiring Fiscal Honesty and Accountability Act of 2004, to impose some
discipline on the federal budget process. This legislation would cap
discretionary spending for the next 3 years at the same level requested
by President Bush. The bill would also reinstate the so-called ``pay-
as-you-go'' rules that helped bring the budget into balance in the late
1990s. These rules require that any legislative changes that would
increase the deficit--whether spending increases or tax cuts--must be
offset by cuts or revenue increases somewhere else in the budget. H.R.
3995 would also reform the ``emergency'' spending loophole that allows
Congress to spend billions of dollars a year outside the normal budget
process.

Finally, I disagree with the spending priorities in the Republican
budget. For example, the Republican budget provides $8.8 billion less
for education programs than the $34.3 billion authorized by the No
Child Left Behind Act for 2005. That means local school districts will
continue to struggle with the unfunded mandates of the President's key
education initiative.
And, inexplicably, the House Republican budget follows the
President's lead by cutting programs to assist America's small
businesses. There are 23 million small businesses in the United States,
representing 99 percent of all employers. The generate three-fourths of
all new jobs. They create more than half of our GDP. Small technology
companies are the trailblazers, producing 13-14 times more patents per
employees than large firms. Small companies employ 40 percent of high-
tech workers. Funding for the Small Business Administration has
decreased every year since President Bush took office. If the
Republicans have their way, the microloan and New Market Venture
Capital programs will be eliminated, funding for Women's Business
Centers, technical assistance, and technology programs will be cut, and
the SBA's largest loan program, the 7(a) programs, will be slashed and
fees will be increased. These policies are harmful at any time, but
they are particularly detrimental to our Nation's small businesses
during a time of economic instability.
The Republican budget provides $1.3 billion less for veterans
programs in 2005 than what the House Committee on Veterans Affairs
recommended on a bipartisan basis. It provides $2 billion less for
veterans programs than what veterans themselves requested in their
Independent Budget proposal.

[[Page H1559]]

That is why veterans organizations, including Veterans of Foreign
Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and the Paralyzed Veterans of
America have called the Republican budget ``half-hearted'' and ``ill-
advised''. They urged a vote against it and said the Republican budget
``would be a disservice to those men and women who have served this
country and who are currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around
the world in our fight against terrorism.''
I am also concerned that the Republican budget cuts homeland security
funding by $857 million below even the level requested by President
Bush, which includes cuts to port security grants and cuts to grants
for our Nation's first responders like police and firefighters.
Because the Republican budget borrows so much money, runs up record
budget deficits, and still fails to adequately fund priority programs
that Oregonians depend on, I will vote against the Republican budget.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to support the budget
resolution before us today. While the budget before us makes great
strides to control spending and reduce the deficit, I am afraid the
Veterans Administration will not have the necessary resources to take
care of our nation's veterans. I know that many of my Virginia
congressional colleagues share these same concerns as well.
While I fully recognize that no budget is perfect, I hope we can all
agree that providing health care to our nation's veterans should be the
last place we look to reduce spending. Perhaps it would be more
appropriate for us to review our spending on foreign aid before we ask
our veterans to sacrifice yet again for their country. At a time when
our country has soldiers deployed in Iraq in defense of freedom, it is
important that we do not leave behind the men and women who have served
our country in the past.
To this end, I want to express my support of an amendment to the
Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Resolution, offered by my colleague from
Virginia, Virgil Goode. Unfortunately, this amendment will not be
offered on the floor today for a vote, but it does, however, deserve
our attention. Mr. Goode's amendment calls for an $8 billion cut from
foreign aid spending, using that money instead to further assist our
Nation's veterans and decrease the size of our federal deficit.
This important measure would redirect funds used across seas and
place it back in the hands of the American people. By paying down our
Federal deficit we are investing in the future of America and by
providing healthcare for our veterans we are repaying them for the
personal investments they have made on our behalf. Mr. Speaker, the
time has come when America must pay its debts, and that time as now.
I will vote for this budget, however, because I believe it is vital
that we keep the budget process moving. Further delaying the budget
could negatively impact defense, homeland security, and other important
government functions, as well as cause spending for our veterans to
revert to previous levels. As we have seen in the past, failing to pass
a budget resolution causes a train wreck in the appropriations process.
With America still fighting the war on terror, we cannot allow that to
happen again.
It is my hope that the final product will be improved dramatically,
so that I will be able to support the final budget conference report. I
will have great reservations in supporting this budget again should it
be returned to the House in its current form.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. economy has shown truly
amazing resilience after the many challenges of the last few years,
including: a terrorist attack, war, corporate scandals and recession.
In spite of these factors: real GDP growth was 8.2 percent in the 3rd
quarter of 2003, the highest pace in two decades, housing starts are at
the highest level in 20 years, mortgage rates are the lowest in over 30
years, and payroll employment has increased by 364,000 jobs in the past
6 months.
This is good news for every American family. Economic growth is the
key to prosperity for everyone. And the Republican budget is the plan
that will ensure that these growth trends continue.
One way this budget encourages sustained economic growth is by not
raising taxes. Under the budget drafted by Chairman Nussle, there will
be no reduction in the child tax credit, no increase in the marriage
penalty, and no lowering of the income limit for the 10 percent tax
bracket. Raising taxes, as the Democrats have proposed, would be a
severe blow to the recovering economy and to young families.
The Democrats believe that taxes should be raised to pay for more
government spending. During the Budget Committee markup the Democrats
proposed to increase spending by $28.6 billion next year, paid for by
raising taxes by $28.9 billion next year.
I ask my colleagues, why do we need more spending and higher taxes?
Spending by the Federal Government has reached over $20,000 per
household. I find that total staggering. I dare say that most families
could do great good for their children with a fraction of that amount
back in the family budget.
Some people have blamed the deficit on the tax cuts. In reality, the
downturn in the economy is the largest factor in erasing the surplus.
And we must keep in mind that the projected surpluses as far as the eye
could see were just on paper, they were never guaranteed. The good news
is that the economy is recovering faster than expected, and that growth
will be a significant factor in reducing future deficits. The key is
for Congress to stay out of the way of economic growth.
The runaway spending that followed the rosy surplus projections is
the second largest contributing factor that has pushed us into deficit
spending. Since 1997, spending has increased 3.6 percent faster than
inflation and as revenue began dropping in 2000, spending continued to
climb. Spending in time of war or national emergency is warranted, but
now spending restraint is necessary or we will never return to a
balanced budget.
The Republican budget plan puts us on track to cut the deficit in
half in 4 years. We must be faithful to a plan of fiscal responsibility
or our children and grandchildren will inherit a debt they can't afford
to pay.
This budget blueprint holds the line on spending to keep the
government from dragging down the economy. This does not mean that
every program will be treated the same by the Appropriations Committee.
It does mean that priorities will have to be set and hard choices will
have to be made.
Some worthy programs will receive a funding increase and other less
effective or unproven programs may receive a cut. These decisions are
up to the Appropriations Committee. The Budget Committee is simply
setting the aggregate spending numbers. The nondefense, nonhomeland
security discretionary number is frozen at last years funding level.
This is a responsible decision when spending is driving us toward a
deficit that could be nearly impossible to overcome.
I believe the numbers in our budget will have the government
operating as a wise steward of taxpayer dollars. Our constituents are
demanding accountability for these dollars and this budget plan
delivers.
I urge your support for this budget.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to oppose the budget under
consideration today. Some believe they must accept the President's
request for higher defense spending. Too many Members of Congress
believe that a vote against higher defense budgets is tantamount to
being ``weak on defense.'' But what they ignore is the fact that the
President's defense number is weak on defense contractors. It gives
nearly everything the contractors could want, and as I will show in a
minute, it fails to make Americans safer.
How does the V-22 tilt rotor--which has killed 30 Marines in a crash
rate of 18 percent--make Americans any safer? Of course it doesn't. But
spending $1.75 billion to procure it makes the contractor richer.
How does the so-called National Missile Defense--which has not been
shown to work, according to the DOD's own director of testing--make
America any safer? It doesn't. But it does make the contractor richer.
How does the F-22 airplane, which suffers from exorbitant cost
overruns and offers little improvement over today's more than capable
F-15, make America any safer? Again, it doesn't. But at a cost of $4.7
billion in this year's budget, the contractors will see great profits.
Rather than buying a false idea of security by handing billions to
defense contractors for hardware that doesn't work, can't work, or
won't work to defend against the threats of today, let's buy the
defense we do need and invest the rest in economy security.
America needs jobs. The Nation has lost 2.2 million total jobs since
President Bush took office. Experts had expected an increase of 125,000
new jobs in February, but in reality companies added just 21,000 new
jobs last month. Manufacturing lost 3,000 jobs in February, a 43-month
continuous slide. Since July 2000, the manufacturing sector has shed
2.8 million of its jobs. And the construction industry is suffering
under a 9.3-percent unemployment rate.
There were 8.2 million unemployed workers in February. Yet this
number is low; 1.7 million additional workers were not counted in the
unemployment figures, as they hadn't looked for a job in the prior 4
weeks.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues face a quandary today. Many of them are
going to vote for large deficits and reduced domestic spending in order
to fund a $26.5 billion increase in defense spending. To do that means
Congress will not spend enough money to create jobs. And jobs are the
bottom line for Americans.
There is a better approach for a safer and stronger America. First we
will reduce defense spending to last year's request, although much more
could be cut. That still leaves a defense budget increase of 26 percent
since 2001, not

[[Page H1560]]

accounting for the extra funds for Afghanistan or Iraq, some $186
billion. The $26.5 billion can then be shifted to the Transportation
Equity Act--a Legacy for Users (TEA-LU) to create jobs. Over 6 years,
this increases the TEA-LU authorization, set by the committee at $275
billion, to $434 billion, a full $59 billion above the initial goal of
the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation Committee. More
importantly, the large infusion of cash into our nation's
transportation infrastructure means hundreds of thousands of jobs and a
dependable infrastructure system allowing the economy to continue to
grow.
Sensible cuts in defense spending can fund more jobs for Americans
who desperately need them. Our country's economic strength, our ability
to create jobs and improve business productivity, and our desire to
create a safe, efficient transportation system are all-dependent upon
increasing investment in our Nation's infrastructure. The Department of
Transportation's own studies show that every $1 billion of Federal
funds invested in highway infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs and $6.2
billion in economic activity. Authorizing $434 billion over 6 years for
our transportation infrastructure will yield tremendous job growth and
other economic benefits. In short, defense cuts can create more jobs
for Americans.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the FY2005 Concurrent Budget
Resolution that was reported by the House Budget Committee and that we
have before this House for final passage. I do so for a variety of
reasons that I want to explain.
I am heartened by our country's recent up tick in the index of
leading economic indicators. Yet, we are also chastened because we all
count among our families, friends, and neighbors, dislocated workers
who have fallen victim to corporate down-sizing and dismayed recent
college graduates and long-term unemployed Americans who are looking
for their first or next jobs. All are seeking to grasp a rung up the
ladder of economic opportunity, and this budget will not help them.
This misguided budget resolution frames critical policy choices for
our national economy that will shape our lives and the lives of all of
our constituents at the regional, State, community, and personal levels
for many years to come.
One policy option, that is embodied in this flawed budget resolution,
is to keep borrowing against our future and that of our children, and
perhaps their children, to keep our economic ship afloat. This is how
we have added more to the national debt in the past three years than in
the prior two centuries of our Nation's history. A vote in favor of
this budget resolution is a vote for more ``borrow and spend'' policies
that are responsible for our country's current fiscal nightmare.
Adding insult to fiscal injury, this budget resolution also clears
the way for more tax cuts for those who need them the least, given the
predisposition of the Bush Administration, and who have benefited
disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts enacted by this Republican-
controlled Congress so far. Where is the tidal wave of re-investment in
new plants, equipment, and jobs and factories in America that the
proponents of this budget have promised us repeatedly in the past three
years? At their behest, the American people are required to put our
collective faith in the belief that the ladder of economic opportunity
will not be pulled up behind the most affluent. If we continue down
this ill-advised, self-indulgent path, we run the risk of drowning in a
sea of red ink and our children and grandchildren can look forward to
lives of indebtedness and growing inequality.
This Congress could make a better choice. In so doing, we could build
upon what has worked in the past when our economy was growing by leaps
and bounds and creating millions of new jobs, as recently as the 1990s.
We could abandon the fraud of supply-side economics, once and for all,
step up, and reassert control over shaping our preferred economic
future--one that offers more good jobs, a higher standard of living,
and real economic opportunity for all of the American people. Sadly,
this budget resolution takes us farther down the wrong track.

Over several generations, American economic wealth and power has been
built largely on the foundation of unparalleled imagination, research,
innovation, productivity, and hard work. Investment and commercial
opportunity in our economic system have always followed new discoveries
and laboratory breakthroughs, not the other way around. Before prudent
investors have risked their capital in new commercial ventures, our
scientists, inventors, and pioneer thinkers have been supported in
their efforts and rewarded for their successes in achieving what had
previously been unthinkable.
If we want to strengthen our economy again, in the future, if we want
to create new, good-paying jobs for all of our people, and promote
broad-based, sustainable economic development, then I believe we must
become more creative and provide more support from the public and
private sector for cutting-edge research and development. We have to
stop borrowing and spending. We have to stop eating our seed corn. We
have to provide increased and more sustained support from the public
and private sectors for basic research and development.
Up to now, America has always been a nation of explorers, creators,
and inventors. We need to regain that edge and ride a new wave of
research and follow-on commercial development into a new age of
economic growth and prosperity. But this budget resolution does none of
this. The supporters of this budget don't want to keep faith and invest
in the American people, increase Federal support for research,
development, and entrepreneurial drive, and rebuild American
competitiveness in the global economy. If they did, they could not in
good conscience vote for the skewed priorities of this budget
resolution and the Draconian, counterproductive cuts it will dictate.
Let me cite a few of the most glaring examples:
On Federal support for research and development, the Federal research
and development portfolio would mostly decline compared to last year's
funding, consistent with the 0.5 percent increase for nondefense,
nonhomeland security discretionary spending overall. Even the two
favored nondefense research and development agencies in recent years
are being forced to accept diminished expectations: The National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
On education, this budget again short-changes our students, teachers,
and schools. It will provide $8.8 billion less than authorized and
promised when the Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act at the
urging of President Bush. It fails to provide any increase in the
maximum Pell grant award at a time of soaring tuition costs in higher
education. It also falls way short in funding of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), providing only half of the 40
percent Federal funding ceiling.

For America's veterans, this budget is another slap in the face and
betrayal of what they have earned and been promised. This budget
provides $1.3 billion less than what the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee has recommended--on a bipartisan basis--to maintain vital
veterans health care programs. Over the next five years, this budget
cuts $1.6 billion from the total needed just to maintain current
service levels. In practical terms, this shortfall will imperil health
care for at least 170,000 veterans. Alternatively, it will result in
13,000 fewer doctors, nurses, and other caregivers needed to treat
veterans. No wonder the Disabled Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS are all strongly opposed to
this budget.
On the environment, this budget promises more tax cuts, while cutting
funding for clean air, safe drinking water, and the cleanup of toxic
waste sites. It actually calls for cutting $1.5 billion (5.1 percent)
from last year's funding level. That means clean water and drinking
water needs, like the elevated lead levels in DC's water supply, will
go unmet. Groundwater contamination from leaking MTBE and petroleum
will continue. Promised conservation funding will not be provided and
American taxpayers will foot the bill for egregious corporate
polluters.
On homeland security, this budget provides $648 million (14.6
percent) less than last year for first responders, with firefighter
assistance grants in particular being cut by $246 million (33 percent)
below last year. It also cuts funding for port security by $79 million
(63.2 percent) below last year's funding level. At a time when our
Nation continues to face new threats to homeland security, it cuts $857
million from the President's request, applying cuts to all homeland
security activities outside of the Pentagon.
On health care, this budget requires $2.2 billion in Medicaid cuts at
precisely the time when nearly every State has already been forced to
cut their Medicaid programs. It forfeits $1.1 billion for State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which means 4,000,000
children will lose coverage over the next four years. NIH will be cut
by $553 million below last year's funding level, when adjusted for
inflation and over the next five years, public health programs face an
$11.4 billion shortfall. With over 887,000 people in the U.S. living
with HIV/AIDS, this budget cuts $28 million. Cardiovascular disease
research will be cut by $22 million, even though heart disease is the
leading cause of death in America.
For American workers, this budget gives them the back of the hand. It
fails to extend unemployment benefits and drastically shortchanges
child care funding, when work requirements for welfare recipients are
being toughened. It calls for $3.1 billion in cuts for safety net
programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the earned
income tax credit, child nutrition programs, and public employee
retirement benefits.
For our small business constituents and entrepreneurs, this budget is
badly deficient.

[[Page H1561]]

While funding for the Small Business Administration is not broken out
as a separate function in this budget resolution, the Bush
Administration has already made clear its intention to slash SBA
funding in FY 2005 and beyond. President Bush's FY 2005 budget calls
for cutting at least $79 million for the SBA from last year's funding.
That would leave total funding for the SBA at nearly half of what was
proposed in Former President Clinton's final budget request. It would
also remove all Federal subsidies to the 7(a) loan program, the SBA's
flagship program, and instead place higher fees on small businesses.
The microloan program is targeted for elimination altogether.
I could go on and on with examples of why this budget ought to be
rejected. Suffice it to say that it is more of the same policy
prescriptions that have caused an $8.5 trillion fiscal slide and the
loss of nearly 3 million jobs in the last three years.
We can and should do better. I want to support a budget that reflects
fiscal responsibility and that will help all Americans achieve
financial security. That means investing more in the American people
and in programs to help create good-paying jobs, improve education,
lower health care costs, make college affordable, helps small business
grow, keeps faith with our veterans and military retirees, protects our
homeland, and promote environmental sustainability. This budget
resolution fails on all counts.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget being debated today
shortchanges California and shortchanges America. It is fiscally
irresponsible, fails to address the tremendous challenges facing
America today, and fails to invest in America's future.
Rather than ensuring a stable source of income for seniors and the
disabled, the Republican budget raids the Social Security trust fund.
Rather than investing in health care, education and job creation,
Republicans have chosen to spend trillions of dollars on tax cuts. As a
result of the Republicans' misguided priorities and fiscal
irresponsibility, America is facing record deficits, with no end in
sight. These deficits threaten to lead to increased interest rates,
uncertainty in financial markets and slower economic growth.
The Republican budget fails to help those Californians who need it
most. Republicans refuse to provide funds for the extension of
unemployment benefits, despite the fact that an estimated 300,000
Californians will have exhausted their benefits by the end of June.
Likewise, the Republican budget cuts funding for important child and
family services like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the
Earned Income Tax Credit, affordable housing and Medicaid.
I am also concerned because I believe our troops and veterans have
earned our honor and support. Yet despite their brave service to our
country, the Republican budget denies promised benefits to our military
personnel and their families here at home--by cutting funding for
veterans' programs.
On the other hand, Democrats have a budget that reflects the
priorities of the people of California, and of all Americans. It
extends unemployment benefits for workers looking for jobs; invests in
programs that create good jobs; ensures retirement security; provides
for affordable and accessible health care; funds education, including
the ``No Child Left Behind Act''; and supports our troops and veterans.
It is a fiscally sound plan that brings the budget back into balance
within eight years. Moreover, to ensure fiscal discipline in the
future, it requires that future tax cuts and mandatory spending
initiatives be paid for without adding to the deficit.
For those reasons, I will vote for the Democratic alternative. Where
the Republicans budget fails, the Democratic budget provides sound
economic and fiscal policies that reflect the priorities of people in
California and across the country.
Mr PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I once again find myself compelled to vote
against the annual budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 393, for a very
simple reason: it makes government bigger. Like many of my Republican
colleagues who curiously voted for today's enormous budget, I campaign
on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This
means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over
previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget
that did not slash Federal spending by at least 25 percent, a feat that
becomes less unthinkable when we remember that the Federal budget in
1990 was less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the
Federal Government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago? Hardly.
It once took more than 100 years for the Federal budget to double, now
it takes less than a decade. We need to end the phony rhetoric about
``priorities'' and recognize Federal spending as the runaway freight
train that it is. A Federal Government that spends $2.4 trillion in 1
year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation's GDP is far too
large.
Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken
issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for
government in our society? Are these ever-growing social services and
defense expenditures really proper in a free country? We need to
understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost.
Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating
whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget
should exist at all. My Republican colleagues especially ought to know
this. Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle
and pander to the entitlements crowd. But this approach will backfire,
because Democrats will always offer to spend even more than
Republicans. When Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare,
Democrats will offer $600 billion. Why not? It's all funny money
anyway, and it helps them get re-elected.
I object strenuously to the term ``baseline budget.'' In Washington,
this means that the previous year's spending levels represent only a
baseline starting point. Both parties accept that each new budget will
spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more. If
Republicans offer a budget that grows Federal spending by 3 percent,
while Democrats seek 6 percent growth, Republicans trumpet that they
are the party of smaller government. But expanding the government
slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it.

Furthermore, today's budget debate further entrenches the phony
concept of discretionary versus nondiscretionary spending. An
increasing percentage of the annual Federal budget is categorized as
``nondiscretionary'' entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly
has no choice whether to fund certain programs. In fact, roughly two-
thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary
spending. When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the Federal
budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either.
Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5
trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at
budget time? The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a big-
government statist's dream, because it assumes that we as a society
simply have accepted that most of the Federal leviathan must be funded
as a matter of course. No program or agency should be considered
sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable.
The assertion that this budget will reduce taxes is nonsense. Budget
bills do not change the tax laws one bit. Congress can pass this budget
today and raise taxes tomorrow--budget and tax bills are completely
separate and originate from different committees. The budget may make
revenue projections based on tax cuts, but the truth is that Congress
has no idea what Federal revenues will be in any future year.
Similarly, the deficit reduction supposedly contained in the budget is
illusory. The Federal government always spends more in future years
than originally projected, and always runs single-year deficits when on
factors in raids on funds supposedly earmarked for Social Security. The
notion that today's budget will impose fiscal restraint on Congress in
the future is laughable--Congress will vote for new budgets every year
without the slightest regard for what we do today.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have discussed the details of this budget
ad nauseam. The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending
would not be needed if Congress stopped trying to build an empire
abroad and a nanny state at home. Our interventionist foreign policy
and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this Nation if we do not
change the way we think about the proper role of the Federal
government.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, one day history will judge us and our
stewardship of this country. Our children and grandchildren will ask
whether we led this country soundly, meeting our challenges
forthrightly and honestly, taking care of the most vulnerable among us,
and preparing the ground for future generations, so that they may know
peace and prosperity.
Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that instead of judging us as one of the
Greatest Generations, we will be known simply as the Greedy Generation.
Once again the Majority has put forth a budget that would place a
greater and greater burden of debt onto the next generation, so that we
might take our tax cuts now. It's a budget that short-changes the
promises we have made to our children's education, to our veterans'
health, and to the safety and security of our communities, so that we
may take our tax cuts now. During this time when we face some of the
greatest challenges this country has ever known--the challenges of two
and a half million jobs lost, of 43 million Americans without health
insurance, of terrorists who still plot to do us harm--this Congress
can apparently muster no more inspiring response than, ``give us our
tax cuts now.''
Mr. Chairman, it's not hard to identify the many problems with this
budget. Instead of

[[Page H1562]]

ensuring that all our children have equal access to education and
opportunity, this budget under-funds the No Child Left Behind Act by
$8.8 billion. Instead of securing our nation's harbors and waterways,
this budget proposes a 63 percent cut in port security grant funding.
Under this budget, more than 250,000 families could lose affordable
housing. Veterans will face millions of dollars in new enrollment and
access fees for health care. The list goes on and on.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to think about how we will be
judged in the eyes of history. I urge my colleagues to reject this
irresponsible budget resolution and let us work together, from both
sides of the aisle, to head this country in a direction that makes us
stronger, safer, and more prosperous.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong
support of the Democratic Leadership Substitute and in opposition to
the Republican Budget, H. Con. Res. 393, which fails to meet the fiscal
and societal challenges Americans face today. While the Republican
budget focuses on a tax cut for only a few, slashes important funding
for health care, veterans, education and environmental programs, and
does little to revive the economy, the Democratic plan is a fiscally
responsible solution to balance the budget, reign in the deficit, fund
priorities, and promote job creation and economic growth.
The Democratic Leadership Substitute achieves a balanced federal
budget within eight years and invests in meaningful job creation,
education, veterans benefits, environmental protection, infrastructure
and economic development.
Since 2001, the economy has lost more than 3 million private sector
jobs. In the Kansas City Metropolitan Area in the past three years,
21,300 jobs have been lost. The Republican proposal we are considering
today continues the Administration's same failed economic policies,
which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has concluded will have, at
best, a small impact on the economy over the next five years.
Alternatively, the Democratic substitute promotes job creation by
restoring funding to small business loan programs, job training and the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. Additionally, it extends
temporary federal unemployment benefits for workers looking for jobs
and extended tax cuts, such as the child tax credit and marriage
penalty relief.
The Republican budget does not adequately fund our nation's top
priority: homeland security. Of particular concern is its failure to
fully fund our first responders including police, firefighters, and
emergency medical service technicians. Federal funds for first
responders is a top concern in my district and across the country, and
the Democratic substitute ensures these needs by providing $5 billion
in additional funding over the next five years. As a member of the
Select Committee on Homeland Security, I support adequate funding for
state and local governments to prevent and prepare for any type of
terrorist threat.
The Democratic budget also restores funding to important veterans
programs that the Republican resolution cuts. It provides the full
funding level, $32.3 billion, requested for 2005 by the Committee on
Veterans Affairs. Additionally, it includes $6.6 billion more than the
Republican budget over the next five years for critical health needs.
The Republican budget resolution shortchanges authorized education
programs by approximately $9 billion just as many costly federal
mandates, such as annual testing and highly qualified teacher
requirements, will take effect. It is unacceptable to impose federal
mandates on the states without the funding necessary to fulfill them.
As a formal teacher, I understand how important education is to the
future of our children. The Republican budget also proposes the
smallest overall increase for education programs in nine years.
Additionally, it falls further behind on fully funding special
education by proposing only a 0.5 percent increase in funding. Finally,
it freezes Pell Grant funding, making college unaffordable for millions
of low income students. Alternatively, the Democratic substitute
provides $9.8 billion more for education and training programs over the
next five years. It also restores $3.7 billion for Pell grants and
additional funding to make college loans more affordable.
The federal budget resolution must fulfill the priorities of the
American people. It must be fiscally responsible in ensuring our
security, providing adequate funding for domestic programs, putting
Americans back to work and balancing the budget. With passage of the
Democratic Leadership Substitute, we can work together to put the
priorities of the American people first.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution fails to meet the
fiscal challenges Americans face today and slashes programs that are
their lifeline. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic
substitute as a more realistic budgetary solution that funds programs
essential to those who seek the American dream.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, Michigan has one of the highest
unemployment figures in the country, and that figure continues to rise.
Michigan's unemployment rate is 7.6 percent, the Upper Peninsula's
jobless rate is 8.6 percent, and Northeast Lower Michigan's jobless
rate is 12.4 percent.
But the Republican budget does nothing to create jobs here at home or
end incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. It cuts small
business investment and fails to extend unemployment insurance for
millions of jobless Americans, including 335,868 unemployed residents
of Michigan. And it includes new tax cuts--while our nation's checkbook
sinks deeper in the red--with a $531 billion deficit.
I offered proposals that were rejected along partisan lines by the
Rules Committee that would have put fiscal sanity into our budgeting
process. My amendment said, no new tax cuts unless we have a surplus
that can pay for it and no tax breaks for companies that ship jobs
overseas.
Yes, we have to make hard choices given the record deficits we have
today. However, I cannot choose tax cuts over the priorities of the
working families and seniors of Michigan. At town hall meetings and in
letters, my constituents tell me: protect our jobs and manufacturers,
protect our Social Security and Medicare, fund education, provide
affordable health care and make our communities safer. This budget
shortchanges all of those priorities. Here are just two examples:
Michigan's Medicaid rolls have increased by almost 30 percent in the
past four years. But this budget cuts Medicaid by $2.2 billion, while
including a $46 billion dollar give-away to HMO's.
In Michigan, 128,900 manufacturing jobs have been lost since the
beginning of 2001. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
program has been highly successful in helping small Michigan
manufacturers to modernize and stay competitive in the global
marketplace. MEP has directly helped companies in my district including
Horner Flooring of Dollar Bay and Jacquart Fabric Products in Ironwood,
Michigan.
Rather than support the Republican blue-print, which makes an
expanding deficit worse and under-funds veterans programs, health care,
education, and first-responder programs, I support the Democratic and
Blue Dog Democrat alternatives. Both combine fiscal responsibility with
help for our working families. Unlike the Republican budget, the
Democratic and Blue Dog alternatives would get us back on track to a
balanced budget and include a ``pay as you go'' budget enforcement
mechanism. Both plans repeal the marriage penalty and provide for a
child tax credit that working families depend on during these uncertain
economic times. And both make key investments in our job training,
small business, health care, education, and veterans.
It is clear to me that these alternatives better reflect the values
of Americans and the residents of the First District of Michigan, will
create more jobs, and will restore fiscal discipline to Washington that
I know the people of Michigan want and expect.
Mrs. SUSAN DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous
consent to revise and extend my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today because I am deeply concerned about the
devastating impact House Concurrent Resolution 393 could have on my
community of San Diego.
As many of you know, my home state of California is in the midst of
its own budget crisis.
To cope with our oversized deficit, the Governor and State
Legislature have had to make significant cuts to many of our most vital
programs and services.
And as our State struggles to rebuild its economy, I am concerned
that we are not taking the right steps here, in Congress, to provide
States like California with the resources they need to maintain even
the most basic day-to-day functions that our citizens have come to
depend upon.
And when I look at the cuts this budget resolution makes to
education, housing, the environment, veterans health care, homeland
security, local law enforcement, and Social Security--I am concerned
that this legislation fails to reflect the needs and priorities of San
Diego's families and businesses.
To illustrate this point, I would like to talk about a few key areas
that have been left behind by this resolution.
For example, this budget resolution deeply undercuts funding for
homeland security, State and local law enforcement, and the community-
based COPS Program.
People often forget just how much we rely on our local law
enforcement personnel to defend our homeland security.
Short-changing police at the State and local level ultimately weakens
our ability to defend our cities, ports, and borders.
With the terrorist bombing in Madrid just a few weeks ago, we are
reminded of the need to expand our policing efforts to protect
vulnerable targets like mass transportation.

[[Page H1563]]

Yet there are simply not enough law enforcement personnel in my
district to patrol this critical infrastructure, and without adequate
funding, it will remain that way.
San Diego is home to a busy international airport, a major port, Navy
installations, Marine bases, and is adjacent to the busiest border
crossing in the country.
We cannot afford these massive cuts in State and local law
enforcement and homeland security.
Like so many other localities, our dedicated policemen and women want
to help. But their hands are tied.
Mr. Chairman, the other issue I want to talk about today is just how
destructive cuts to the section 8 program could be for San Diego.
My family and I have lived in San Diego for more than 30 years, and I
will be the first to tell you how wonderful it is to call such a
beautiful community home.
Unfortunately, with an average median home cost of more than
$468,000, it has become unbearably difficult for many hopeful
homebuyers to live in our great city.
And it is not just home prices that are increasingly out of range for
the average citizen.
The average apartment rent in San Diego is over $1 thousand, and
families need to earn more than $22 per hour to afford to rent a two-
bedroom apartment.
Our waiting list for section 8 vouchers averages about 25 thousand
individuals, many of whom have been on the list for 6 or 7 years before
finally receiving a voucher.
I hear all too often stories of individuals or families struggling to
make ends meet, yet are still unable to afford San Diego's housing or
even rental costs.
I know of a retired minister in his seventies with a serious heart
condition, who is constantly faced with the choice of filling his heart
medication prescription or paying his rent.
There are residents in my district, who have been displaced and--
unable to afford rent anywhere else--have been forced to live in motels
or even in their own cars.
A San Diego paramedic with a wife and small children struggled to get
by until they finally qualified to live in an affordable housing
development funded by our local Housing Commission.
But just imagine--this man was saving lives in our own community and
yet he was unable to afford to live there!
Mr. Chairman, it is just not right for our first responders and
police officers to be priced out of the very community they put their
lives on the line to protect each day.
Section 8 is a vital, successful program, and my community simply
cannot afford to withstand the cuts proposed in this measure.
We should be doing more--not less--to help hard-working Americans
find safe, affordable places to live, and I ask my colleagues to
consider the critical shortfalls included in this budget when we vote
on this resolution.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, as a member of both the Congressional Black
Caucus and the Energy and Commerce Committee, I rise in opposition to
H. Con. Res. 393, the first concurrent resolution on the budget, which
will set this House's spending and revenue priorities for the next
fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposing this resolution not only because it
freezes the rate of growth in the domestic programs that are so
important to my constituents--programs that fund education, health
care, community development and affordable housing, but also, because
does so while making additional future tax cuts permanent and because
it devastates the Medicaid program by reducing it by $2.2 billion over
the next 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, unlike the Republican leadership's budget resolution,
both the Congressional Black Caucus substitute and the Democratic
budget alternative promote necessary domestic investments in homeland
security, education, job training, and workforce development. The
Congressional Black Caucus substitute invests in education and the
workforce by fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act and by
extending unemployment benefits for those who have exhausted their
regular jobless benefits.
Furthermore, neither the Democratic budget alternative nor the
Congressional Black Caucus substitute reduce the Medicaid program.
Mr. Chairman, the Medicaid recipients and their families in my
Congressional district want assurances from the leadership in this
House that the critical needs that the most vulnerable in my State of
Illinois will continue to be met.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
Congressional Black Caucus budget substitute and the Democratic budget
alternative so that this Congress can work toward a sane and balanced
budget policy which meets the critical needs of the citizens of this
Nation.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I know that the Budget Committee weighed
several pressing national priorities as it prepared the FY 2005 Budget
Resolution, including the continuing war on terrorism, facilitating
economic stimulus, and maintaining fiscal responsibility.
I support the Budget Committee's determination to curb overall
spending in this year's budget resolution. While I recognize that the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) have critical funding needs, I am disappointed that Function 250,
which includes basic scientific research and development, did not
receive the same level of support. Function 250 was flat funded at
$22.8 billion. This clearly does not provide necessary increases in
critical basic science programs such as the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
I am a strong advocate of these programs, and those at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), because scientific
research and development underpins our economic and national security.
Scientific research and development forms the foundation of defense and
weapons development, increased innovation, and economic vitality.
Scientific research is an investment that promises, and has
historically delivered, significant returns on that investment.
Basic research is essential to advances in medicine, military
applications and continued economic prosperity, including the
development of cancer therapies, GPS- or laser-guided missiles, and the
Internet.
NSF is also the primary source of Federal funding for nonmedical
basic research at colleges and universities. It underwrites the
education of the next generation of scientists, engineers, and
technical workers.
As a nation, we cannot afford to starve basic science research and
education. Continued underfunding of scientific research and education
will erode America's technical and scientific preeminence, diminish our
ability to compete economically, and undermine our children's economic
prosperity and national security.
While I am disappointed that the FY 2005 Budget Resolution does not
increase basic research funding in function 250, I, along with many
colleagues who also support science funding, will fight for these
programs during the appropriations process. Even in a tight budget
year, we must remember that we cannot afford to sacrifice the research
and education which current and future generations need to ensure their
economic prosperity and domestic security.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition
to House Concurrent Resolution 393, the budget resolution for Fiscal
Year 2005. One of the main reasons why I oppose this budget resolution
is because it appears to parallel the President's budget by also
underfunding the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). I have strongly urged
Congress to fully fund the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) for Fiscal Year
2005 and I believe that the funding levels incorporated into this
resolution fail to do so.
It is disheartening that we are approaching the first presidential
election since the 2000 voting irregularities and the President and
Congress still appear unwilling to commit the financial resources
needed to make HAVA's envisioned success a reality.
Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for HAVA's passage, this
budget resolution seems to provide for only $65 million of the $600
million authorized in that landmark law for fiscal 2005.
Under HAVA, the Federal government authorized $3.9 billion to the
States to upgrade their voting procedures in the wake of the 2000
election. State and local governments have traditionally borne these
costs with virtually no assistance from Congress. By passing and
signing HAVA into law, Congress and the President demonstrated that the
Federal Government needs to provide States with a minimum of election-
related resources and technical guidelines.
We must make this modest investment suggested in HAVA. If fully
funded by Congress and the President, HAVA will strengthen confidence
in our electoral process by facilitating the replacement of outdated
voting equipment, the training of poll workers, and the development of
improved election procedures.
Just this week, the new agency created by HAVA, the Election
Assistance Commission (EAC), held its first public meeting to discuss
election issues. The EAC is now our national resource for Federal
election procedures. Thus, the EAC has a very important role in the
future of our election process, and an equally important role in
ensuring that we do not repeat the frustrations of the past.
Mr. Chairman, Congress should guarantee that the work of the
Commission and other components of HAVA are provided for in our budget
resolution, which is one of the reasons why I oppose House Concurrent
Resolution 393 and would like to urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent
Resolution 393--the House Budget Committee's Federal budget.

[[Page H1564]]

This bill is nothing but fiscal illusion--it is unfair to the average
American family and it is irresponsible public policy.
This budget proposal is designed to create record Federal deficits
while decimating valuable domestic programs. Public education,
transportation, veterans benefits, environmental protection and small
business programs would all be drastically cut in order to increase
defense spending and maintain tax breaks for a select wealthy few.
Unbelievably, this bill would gut the Social Security surplus in
order to ensure that tax cuts for the wealthy are not jeopardized.
Social Security is one of the most successful social programs any
nation has ever established. It has provided a real and valuable safety
net to millions of seniors and yet this budget would diminish it in
order to advance a narrow agenda, an agenda that excludes our Nation's
seniors, excludes our Nation's children, excludes our Nation's
veterans, and offers very little to any citizen who is not part of a
small powerful elite.
The House Budget Committee bill offers little for education over the
next 5 years, providing $9.4 billion less than is authorized by No
Child Left Behind, it also freezes funding for Pell grants, cuts
funding for Perkins loans, and cuts vocational education by 25 percent.
And this budget guts $358 million for health programs in 2005, which
is even less than the President requested. And given what we know about
the true cost of last year's Medicare Prescription Drug sham bill, it
is hard to believe that this budget proposal offers nothing to help
seniors with their prescription drug costs while providing $46 billion
in special payments to HMOs.
Mr. Chairman, under the former administration the budget was balanced
for the first time in a generation. Now the current administration has
squandered that legacy, our $5.6 trillion surplus is gone and now this
budget bill will help achieve a $3 trillion deficit.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Congressional Black Caucus Alternative
Budget. This legislative proposal would invest in America's future
without undermining fiscal stability. This budget plan will improve
domestic programs that serve American families; it will increase
funding for homeland security, environmental protection, rail
transportation, health care and health research. It will also increase
funding for veterans benefits and for educational programs including
Head Start, No Child Left Behind, Safe and Drug Free schools, Perkins
loans, Pell grants and job training, vocational education and adult
education.
The Congressional Black Caucus raises revenues by rescinding tax cuts
for those earning over $200,000 in gross income, it also plugs tax
loopholes and eliminates tax avoidance schemes that feed the coffers of
the rich and prevent us from paying down the Federal deficit.
Mr. Chairman, I support the CBC alternative budget as it is a
fiscally sound budget that makes a real investment in our Nation's
future.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, House Republicans offer a budget today out
of touch with reality, with everyday Americans and with basic math. It
undermines veterans, working families, States, the southwest border,
education, homeland security, military housing--and lays bare the real
math beneath Medicare Reform.
This House budget provides $1.3 billion less than what the Veterans'
Affairs Committee recommended--on a bipartisan basis--for these vital
veterans health care programs. The Democratic budget provides the full
committee-recommended level of $32.3 billion for 2005, and includes
$6.6 billion more than the Republican budget over the next 5 years.
The Democratic budget will: improve access and reduce waiting time
for all veterans; meet statutory requirements for long-term care by
increasing the current number of nursing home beds to 1998 levels;
reduce or eliminate the increased co-payments and enrollment fees
proposed in the President's budget; increase funds for medical facility
construction and renovation; and provide the resources necessary for
more responsive reviews of claims and appeals.
Lord knows, Mr. Chairman, our veterans desperately need these
improvements.
Basic complaints from veterans I have talked to in South Texas have
focused on access, waiting times, and a severe lack of in-patient care
in close proximity. We must be guided on spending for veterans by this
fact: the numbers of soldiers coming home will rapidly increase the
population of veterans needing services, from health care to education.
This year, accounting changes at CBO will kill the hugely successful
Military Housing Privatization Initiative that leverages defense money
to build quality housing for military families. This Budget Resolution
effectively cancels adequate family housing for almost 50,000 military
families.
I have a personal attachment to the housing privatization
initiative--it was conceived in Kingsville, TX, out of a need to
leverage Navy dollars for quality housing for military families. With
toilets falling through the roofs of housing in South Texas--and no
money to build other housing--the need was great--and so was our
creativity.
The program was a great success. Defense Secretary Perry became a big
fan of the program in its second year and then made it service-wide.
This is the very best way to get better housing at our military bases,
at the best price to taxpayers. I am disappointed that the budget does
not meet the long-term needs of our veterans and our military families.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Republican budget resolution, and urge its rejection by the House.
Either budget deficits matter or they don't. If anyone here believes
that deficits don't matter and that the Federal Government can continue
to borrow and spend hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year
in perpetuity, then you should vote for the Republican budget. Even if
one takes the majority's budget resolution at face value, by its own
admission the Republican budget adds another $1.35 trillion in red ink
to our Nation's already soaring national debt over the next 5 years. In
fact, the deficit would be far lower if the Speaker simply adjourned
the House and sent it home for the next 5 years.
The reality is that the majority's budget cannot be taken at face
value. This plan's deficit projections are understated. For example,
the Republican budget provides $50 billion to cover the cost of
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005, but then includes
nothing over the next 4 years. Does anyone here seriously believe that
Iraq and Afghanistan will simply drop off the map and out of the budget
after 2005?
The Republican budget also largely ignores the growing problem of the
Alternative Minimum Tax. Some two and a half million households will
get hit by this glitch in the Tax Code as they sit down to do their
taxes this year, with the result that they will lose many of their
itemized deductions and pay more taxes. The AMT problem gets worse year
after year, affecting more and more middle class families. If this
Congress does nothing, the number of households affected by the AMT
soars to 12 million in 2005 and nearly 15 billion households in 2006.
If we do nothing, the AMT will raise the taxes of 30 million taxpayers
by 2010, and yet the Republican budget resolution assumes that Congress
will do nothing to correct this growing problem in the Tax Code.
All of us know that we will have to address the AMT problem.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, keeping the AMT at bay
will cost more $600 billion over the next 10 years. Since the
majority's plan does not budget for this expense, the funds needed will
be put on the national credit card to be paid by our children.
The Republican plan seeks to lock in permanent tax cuts this year
whose costs explode outside the 5 years covered by this budget,
including the tax cuts for the very wealthy. The majority's budget puts
its tax breaks for the very wealthy ahead of everything else: ahead of
deficit reduction; ahead of preserving Social Security for the
impending retirement of the Baby Boom generation; ahead of Medicare;
ahead of veterans programs; ahead of needed investments in education,
transportation, environmental protection, and health care. Even worse,
the Republican tax cuts are heavily tilted to the very wealthy.
I believe that deficits do matter. Because of the bankrupt policies
of the Bush administration and the majority party, the Federal
Government will need to borrow half a trillion dollars this year alone.
If this House approves the majority's budget resolution, you dig the
deficit hole deeper year after year to the tune of several hundred
billion dollars each and every year. This is not a sustainable policy,
and it is a terrible legacy to leave our children.
I urge the House to reject the Republican budget and vote instead for
the budget alternative offered by Representative Spratt. The Spratt
alternative balances the budget, provides middle-class tax relief, and
funds national priorities such as education, environmental protection,
veterans benefits, and health care.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) 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 for
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through
2009, pursuant to House Resolution 574, he reported the concurrent
resolution back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.

[[Page H1565]]

The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote on H.R. 3095 under
suspension of the rules.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 212, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 92]

YEAS--215

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)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
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)

NAYS--212

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)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
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)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
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
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--7

Abercrombie
Ford
Lucas (KY)
McInnis
Quinn
Tanner
Tauzin

{time} 1820

So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________