[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6896-6958]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  The Committee resumed its sitting.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who is fighting Republican 
efforts to cut $13 billion in Medicaid funds from the State of New 
York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) for yielding me the time and for his leadership.
  Today is a solemn day, but as Americans focus on our Armed Forces 
abroad, here at home we face an unprecedented moment in our budget 
history. Never before has Congress tried to pay for a war and at the 
same time pass a massive tax cut. This budget also compromises future 
economic stability because it is so demographically blind.
  If we cannot plan to address the debt now, how are we going to keep 
our promises to the elderly when the baby-boom generation retires? The 
fiscal policies of the President enacted by the Republican Congress 
will impose a massive deficit burden on our children and our 
grandchildren.
  In 2000 we had not only eliminated the deficit, President Bush 
inherited a surplus of over $230 billion a year, but now the projected 
deficit is over $300 billion for this year alone, and at the close of 
fiscal year 2002, the government debt stood at $6.2 trillion.
  The President's own numbers show that were we to enact his programs 
as proposed, we would grow this debt by $2.1 trillion from 2002 to 
2011, and that is before we begin to account for the war. And we know 
that former economic adviser to the President, Lawrence Lindsey, 
estimated the war would cost over $100 billion.
  We have learned that we cannot have guns and butter without 
negatively affecting the economy, yet the Republican budget pushes 
ahead with a massive long-term tax cut before we finance the war.
  At the same time, they grow the deficit, the Republican budget 
manages to cut vital programs, including health care, Medicare, 
Medicaid, housing, school lunches and veterans' benefits. The impact of 
these Federal cuts will be magnified by the States where budgets are 
unbalanced, forcing additional reductions in services and local tax 
increases.
  The Republican budget does absolutely nothing to help the States. The 
Democratic budget does. This irresponsible budget has long-term 
consequences. I disagree with the administration. Deficits do matter. 
Over time, the debt will lower economic growth and increase interest 
rates. The effect will be a hidden tax increase on our constituents in 
the form of higher interest rates on mortgages, credit cards and car 
loans.
  I urge a no vote on the Republican budget and a yes vote on the 
responsible Democratic budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been through this budget process, and I serve 
on the Committee on the Budget, and we have worked through a very 
deliberative process where there can be legitimate disagreement over 
how we fund these priorities, but the bottom line is this.
  This country has suffered a national emergency through September 11. 
We are engaged in war at this time, and we have come out of a recession 
that has put tremendous pressures on our revenues, but there are some 
in this Chamber who think that Washington should be exempt from belt-
tightening when every school board, every municipality, every State in 
America is going through the same process. Just because we print the 
money does not mean that we should not have to find savings.
  There are people on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, who want 
to work towards a responsible way to save Social Security, to save 
Medicare. As a young Member of this Congress, I believe we have to 
think beyond the next election and beyond the next budget to do those 
kinds of things, but if we cannot find 1 percent savings, then we will 
never, ever be able to tell the American people that we can take the 
giant leaps to reform those huge programs.
  The gentleman managing the floor for the other side on this debate 
has labeled some of us in this Chamber as henchmen for supporting our 
President's crusade to liberate Iraq. He has accused the President of 
ordering the assassination of Saddam Hussein to cover up for the fact 
that we have yet to find bin Laden, although we have disrupted al 
Qaeda. I resent that, Mr. Speaker, and I think that he should take his 
tongue-in-cheek tirade back to Baghdad where some of his colleagues 
have trod in the past. It is unacceptable when our young men and women 
are at war to have those kinds of character assassinations. To label 
Members of this body as henchmen, to go after the character of our 
President who has led this Nation through so much, goes above and 
beyond legitimate disagreement over the priorities that this budget 
should have, and it is unacceptable, and it should not stand.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I think the previous speaker was a little 
confused.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) who has been to Baghdad recently and has 
also served in the military, but also recognizes that the State of 
Washington is going to lose $1.7 billion in Medicaid funds if this 
budget were to pass.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me the time.
  When the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) heard I was coming over 
here, he said, are you bringing your walnut shells? Are we playing the 
shell game again over here? I said, no, I have got a new thing that 
came from the White House. It is a rubber stamp. It says ``official 
rubber stamp.'' I approve of everything George Bush does.
  Now that is what we have on here on the floor. You are not henchmen. 
You are just a rubber-stamp bunch.
  What is awesome about this day is we are going to war. Maybe that 
message we just got in here was the war message, I do not know, from 
the President, but Iraq is a country where 60 percent of the people get 
their food through the Oil-for-Food Program. We have now told the 
United Nations take their people out, there is no longer any way to 
feed 60 percent of the 24 million people in Iraq.
  They are your responsibility now. You have taken that on by saying, 
we are going to bring you democracy. Democracy is a pretty empty thing 
if you have got an empty stomach. So you are going to have to come up 
with some money to pay for the food program. There is not one thin dime 
in here.
  My colleagues know that the Lord Jesus Christ went up on the Sermon 
on the Mount there, and he gave this sermon and said that you should 
feed the poor. That is in Matthew, Matthew 26, I believe, and my 
colleagues all know that. All good Christians know that. We are all 
Christians in this country, are we not? We ought to have some money in 
here figuring out how we are going to pay for those people.
  It is not just the Iraqis that are going to be in trouble. In 
Eritrea, the world food program will be out in 2 months. Burundi has 
enough for another 4 weeks. The beans are gone in Liberia, and by the 
end of May they will have no cereal. There are 1,000 refugees in Guinea 
with nothing after August 10.
  This is a budget where we put 400- and I do not know how many 
billions of dollars into the defense budget, but there is not a thin 
dime in here for the people of Iraq. We are saying, oh, we are bringing 
in democracy, oh, yes. Those people in Afghanistan learned about our 
democracy. The first year we did not authorize anything. Then we 
coughed up $300 million after a while. The U.N. said they needed $10 
billion. We put in $300 million. The next year we are about $270- or 
$290-, and we refused to make any long-term commitments. This is a 
country where we spent $4.5 billion bombing them, and

[[Page 6897]]

we can only come up with $300 million a year to rebuild them. Tell me 
how the Sermon on the Mount figures into that. Do my colleagues think 
that is what Jesus would want us to be doing?
  The fact is that the President of Afghanistan came over here, Karzai. 
He went to the White House very shortly ago, last week or the week 
before, begging for money because he is broke. We gave him $50 million 
in OPEC money, but said, by the way, $35 million has to go to build a 
hotel.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how to respond to 
all that other than just to say I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for his leadership. I commend him for 
taking on the task of restraining spending and making certain that we 
move back to fiscal responsibility.
  With the war on terrorism and our struggling economy, our projected 
budget deficits are staggering. Throughout our country, State, local, 
community governments and businesses are cutting their budgets to 
respond to declining revenues. Americans expect us to do the same.
  Only the Federal Government tries to put together a budget where it 
looks to see how much it is going to spend first and then looks to 
revenues, and to some Members of this body the Federal Government can 
never spend enough.
  This budget asked certain Federal agencies to find 1 percent in 
savings in waste, fraud and abuse and efficiencies. It is amazing today 
that we would have a discussion over an argument over 1 penny in a 
dollar. There is not an agency in our government, there is not an 
organization that we have that cannot find 1 percent in waste and 
efficiency even in good times. In the times that we are in, it is 
certainly essential that we put forth the effort.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the distinguished 
gentleman how many speakers he has?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We have enough speakers to fill up the time. 
Would the gentleman like us to catch up?
  Mr. STARK. Sure.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the majority budget 
resolution. Some critics across the aisle believe that the only answer 
to our Nation's challenges is to take a larger slice of the family 
income pie. This budget works to increase the size of that pie by 
growing the economy.
  At a time of war, it is irresponsible to do anything else, but to get 
economic growth, to get better jobs, to get better wages, to get 
families and small businesses to risk their time and their savings on 
that new software idea, that transmission repair shop, they must have 
tax relief, and they need real and permanent tax relief.
  Our plan does just that. The Democrat plan, more taxes, more waste, 
more fraud, more spending, more big government.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not just faith that we have, but historical 
evidence that tax relief works. When President Reagan lowered tax rates 
in the 1980s, real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent a year, and 
Federal revenues actually increased, increased by 20 percent. President 
Kennedy reduced tax rates in the 1960s, and we experienced several 
years of 5 percent economic growth. The same is true of tax relief in 
the 1920s.
  Some of the colleagues across the aisle criticize this budget because 
they do not believe it grows government fast enough. This budget is 
growing the government by 3 percent, almost twice the rate of 
inflation, but more importantly, it helps American families pay for 
their programs.
  Forty-six million married couples would keep $1,700 more of what they 
earn. That is enough to pay two mortgage payments. That is a housing 
program. Thirty-four million families with children would keep an 
additional $1,500, enough to purchase a personal computer. That is an 
education program. Six million single mothers would keep $541, enough 
to purchase a month of day care. That is a child care program.
  Mr. Chairman, contrary to what our colleagues across the aisle 
believe with their budget, we cannot tax our way into prosperity. We 
cannot spend our way into prosperity. We cannot sue our way into 
prosperity. We can only grow our way into prosperity.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I would like to tell my colleagues on actually both sides of the 
aisle that none of us are rubber stamps over here. We are actual human 
beings and Members of Congress. We do not rubber-stamp what the 
President wants or does not want us to do.
  I would also like to say to my colleagues, and, if I may, to the 
people of Iraq, we will stay with you to not only feed you in the 
interim.


                announcement by the chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that 
remarks are to be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, to give a man a fish, he eats a day. To 
teach a man how to fish, he will eat for the rest of his life, and the 
oil in Iraq will be used to improve the quality of life for people in 
Iraq.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. Chairman, this has been one of the best, well-planned operations 
in the history of the world. It has been open for debate for months and 
months and months; and, yes, we support our troops in Iraq. The United 
States Government's major role is to defend this country, but also to 
ensure that those in need are taken care of: those that are hungry, the 
sick, the infirm, the homeless, and the children. And what is the 
government's role as far as the economy is concerned? The government's 
role as far as the economy is to create a structure that stimulates 
economic productivity in the private sector. Support the resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if the enemies of America had a plan to 
slowly undermine our country and sap our economic vitality, I think it 
might look a lot like the plan that underlies this resolution. With 
bombs dropping, missiles flying, and America's brave sons and daughters 
in the desert preparing to march against the tyrant, Saddam Hussein, 
the Republican leadership buries its head in the sand, offering a 
budget that does not even include the costs of this war or the 
rebuilding and occupation, which may go on for decades, in a land as 
volatile as the oil beneath it.
  I spent more on a cup of coffee this morning than the Republicans 
have included in this budget for the war--a war that every American is 
watching and praying about and that is unfolding as we speak.
  Of course, the last Republican to estimate the cost of war, the 
President's top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired for his 
efforts, even though he gave a low-ball figure of a mere $200 billion. 
This represents part of a deliberate strategy by this Administration to 
hide from the American people the true cost in blood, money, and 
insecurity of its reckless, new, preemptive-strike policy.
  The deliberate choice to ignore the war in this budget is similar to 
the President's decision to ignore the last war in the budget he just 
proposed to us. He forgot to include any money for Afghanistan this 
year, absolutely nothing. Yesterday's priority and headlines, are 
today's forgotten footnotes.

[[Page 6898]]

  It is not that the Republican leadership is intentionally harming our 
people. It is just that they are so blinded by their rigid ideology and 
lack of new ideas that all they can offer our people in this hour of 
need is more tax breaks for the few. How else can we explain the recent 
declaration of the Republican leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), that ``nothing is more important in the face of war than 
cutting taxes.''
  Today with so many staring death right in the face, is there really 
nothing more important than cutting taxes?
  While our Defense Secretary may deride our traditional allies as 
``old Europe,'' some of us yearn for the old America, an America that 
when it confronted war understood the importance of shared sacrifice 
from all of our people, that did not say to some, go risk your life in 
defense of our country, and to the rest, you risk having to get a 
bigger pocketbook for more tax breaks; an America that did not say, we 
will borrow all of the money from those who pour in their Social 
Security and Medicare tax dollars, we will borrow from them in order to 
grant tax breaks to a few.
  This is a Republican leadership that is AWOL on observing the duty to 
pay for America's needs. It is our children who will suffer from it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, today of all days, there is no greater 
priority than protecting Americans, supporting our troops, and 
supporting our Commander in Chief. In the face of unprecedented threats 
to our domestic and international security, this wartime budget ensures 
that we can win the war on terrorism, and at the same time it protects 
our homeland from future challenges by providing for the new Department 
of Homeland Security.
  It also strengthens our economic security. By leaving more money in 
the hands of the people who earn it, we encourage Americans to invest 
in their families and communities, to create jobs and grow the economy.
  Finally, this budget also continues our commitment to our seniors by 
providing for a prescription drug benefit.
  Mr. Chairman, this resolution will defend our Nation. It will grow 
our economy. It will protect our seniors, and it will place our 
Nation's budget back on the path of balance. I urge this House to pass 
this budget resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I find it very surprising that the leaders 
of the House would schedule this important national debate today during 
the first 24 hours of the Nation's war against Iraq. We should be 
standing in respectful solidarity with the brave men and women carrying 
out this very difficult and dangerous assignment in Iraq.
  Yet the budget before us presents two features that leap out as 
nothing less than bizarre given the military action under way. First, 
nowhere in the budget is there any cost provided for the waging of this 
war or the U.S. taxpayer dollars that will be spent in Iraq when we 
have prevailed, spent to safeguard the democratic transformation of 
Iraq, spent to safeguard the welfare of the Iraqi people. What will it 
cost? $100 billion, $110 billion, $120 billion. Nobody knows. We cannot 
know on the first day of military action, but we all know it is not 
going to be cheap. It will cost, and it will cost a lot. Yet the budget 
plan before us which runs deficits for the next 10 years does not 
reserve a penny for these costs.
  The second aspect of this budget is even worse in light of the 
mission under way in Iraq. $28 billion is cut over the next 10 years 
from the budget of veterans affairs. The ultimate impact will be reduce 
veterans health care services, force cuts in disability benefits for 
those permanently disabled while serving our Nation's military. Today 
we have young men and women with their lives on the line. It is wrong, 
absolutely wrong to cut the health benefits and the disability benefits 
of those that have served our Nation in the military.
  Later today this House is going to consider a resolution of words 
supporting our troops. Support of words will not provide the health 
care our veterans need, fund the disability checks of those forced to 
live with the wounds of battle. Resolutions of support offered while 
imposing cutbacks in veterans benefits and disability benefits ring 
hollow, indeed, and, in fact, represent the most hypocritical act I 
have seen while serving in this Congress. Our Nation's troops deserve 
so much better. Reject those veterans cuts; reject this budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out, the veterans budget 
increases in this budget. The discretionary budget increases by 6 
percent; the mandatory budget increases by 7 percent. We increase 
veterans spending in this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) mentioned Jesus Christ in this budget, and I kind of think 
Jesus Christ would have liked it. In our house we always had a saying, 
if 10 percent was good enough for God, 10 percent ought to be good 
enough for the government; and this budget is going to save millions of 
Americans billions of dollars over the next 10 years because it puts in 
place a new, lower 10 percent rate, and that is a good thing when we 
leave money in the pockets of American taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this budget and am pleased that it 
includes funding for tax relief by the President. Implementation of the 
President's economic growth package would create thousands of jobs and 
reduce taxes for 1.7 million Tennessee taxpayers, many of who are 
family and small business owners. Indeed, it is important to note 
without enacting this package, an additional 1.4 million taxpayers will 
have to pay the alternative minimum tax. This tax was originally 
enacted in the 1960s to preserve fairness in the code; but over the 
last 10 years, this tax has started to affect many middle-class 
families. Over the next 10 years, these families would have to pay more 
than $37 billion in extra taxes. I am sure they will not think that is 
fair, and I am sure they will not be happy with the other side of the 
aisle who are blocking reform because they do not think we can save 
even a penny on a dollar of waste, fraud, and abuse in this budget.
  The President's growth package raises the exemption level of the AMT 
to save these taxpayers from these additional costs. Mr. Chairman, I 
know this House wants to provide tax relief to the families of America, 
especially in this time of economic uncertainty.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the President and the majority have put us 
on a budgetary equivalent of automatic pilot. No matter what the Nation 
faces in emergencies, wars and ups and downs of the economic cycle, 
only tax cuts for the rich remain stable.
  Denials and delusions have taken over the majority. They now tell us 
that the Bush tax cuts are the only thing that saved us from a worst 
economy. That must be magic then, because the tax cuts have not gone 
into effect, only the rebate has and that ought to be called the 
Democratic tax cut.
  This budget cheats each and every other American except wealthy 
Americans. The only people who have sacrificed for this country since 
September 10, 2001, were those who died in New York and the Pentagon 
and those who are now serving as Reservists abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to show that we can do more than what this 
administration has done for the last 2 years, which is to give us 2.5 
million jobs lost. We must not approve a budget where the only sacred 
cows are not citizens, seniors or children, but tax cuts for the 
wealthy. Vote for the Democratic alternative.

[[Page 6899]]


  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this hour of debate is dedicated to the 
Joint Economic Committee to talk about the economy, so I would like to 
spend a few moments to do just that.
  Our economy is in trouble. Just in the last month of February, we 
lost 308,000 jobs. That is one of the sharpest drops in recent history. 
The unemployment rate at this time stands at 5.8 percent. While this is 
relatively low by historical standards, it is high by recent history. 
Unemployment was only 4 percent as recently as the year 2000.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Chairman, there are three parts of our economy by definition, 
consumption, investment and government spending. Consumption is 
relatively high in this country: retail sales, new refinancings on 
homes, car purchasing. It is why our economy grew at 2.75 percentage 
points last year. Government spending, even though you would not hear 
it from the other side, is at an all-time high. Investment on the other 
hand, Mr. Chairman, has declined in this economy. In fact, investment 
spending in this economy has declined for eight consecutive quarters, 
for 2 years.
  What are we going to do about it? That is an important question, and 
that is a question that is addressed and answered in this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two schools of thought here in Washington. 
One school of thought we are seeing on the other side of the aisle is 
that we just need to spend more money, and that way we will grow the 
economy. Let me review that for a moment here with this chart, and let 
me explain why more government spending does not create jobs.
  Number one, to spend a dollar the government first must tax or borrow 
that dollar from an individual or business. Second, that individual or 
business now has 1 less dollar to spend or invest. Third, the 
government then spends that dollar. But, fourth, there is no net effect 
in economic activity. Government spending goes up by a buck, personal 
private spending goes down by a buck.
  What is the alternative vision to that, Mr. Chairman? The alternative 
vision is to create jobs and promote economic growth by reducing taxes. 
How does that happen? How does this work? Number one, the higher taxes 
are, the less incentive there is to work or invest. It is an economic 
principle that economists from the left and the right agree upon. For 
example, an individual will invest more money when their after-tax 
income on each dollar invested is 80 cents than they would likely 
invest if their after-tax income is 50 cents. Put another way, if half 
of your money goes to taxes, you have less of an incentive to work and 
invest. If more of your money goes into your own pocket, you have a 
higher incentive effect to work and invest. More investment means more 
capital to expand, create businesses and to grow jobs. So new and 
expanded businesses means new jobs. That is why the net effect of 
reducing taxes in this budget will create jobs.
  What kind of tax cuts are we talking about? How many new jobs are we 
looking at? To give you a quick preview of what Americans are looking 
at in the President's economic growth package, in the economic growth 
package that is accommodated in this budget, it is basically this. 
Under the President's proposal to speed up tax relief, 92 million 
American taxpayers would receive, on average, tax cuts of over $1,000 
in this year alone. Forty-six million married couples would receive an 
average tax cut of $1,716. Thirty-four million families with children 
would benefit from an average tax cut of $1,473. Six million single 
women with children would receive an average tax cut of $541. Thirteen 
million elderly taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,384. 
Twenty-three million small business owners would receive tax cuts 
averaging $2,042. For example, a typical family of four with two income 
earners earning a combined $39,000 in income would receive a total of 
$1,100 in tax relief and would wipe out their Federal tax liability.
  Mr. Chairman, how many jobs is this going to create? This is 
something that has been a topic of discussion for quite a while this 
year, and there are a lot of estimates on this point. According to 
conservative estimates by the Council of Economic Advisers, this plan 
will generate 2.1 million jobs over the next 3 years. According to 
other estimates, like the Business Roundtable, they put that figure at 
about 3 million new jobs at the end of the year. Macroeconomic Policy 
Advisers from St. Louis estimates that this economic growth package 
would increase new jobs, create brand new jobs, to the tune of 2 
million new jobs by the end of 2004.
  This is what it is all about, Mr. Chairman. The reason we went into 
deficit is because people went from working and paying taxes to getting 
laid off and collecting unemployment. Sixty-eight percent of the loss 
of the surplus that occurred last year alone occurred because of this. 
We realize more spending is necessary to fight the war on terrorism, to 
win the war in Iraq, but we also realize that if we can get people back 
to work, the most moral economic policy is getting a person a job. It 
is becoming good economic policy, it is good fiscal policy, because if 
a person has a job, they are paying taxes, and they are bringing more 
money to the Federal Government.
  An issue that often comes around when we are talking about the tax 
bill is dividends. I would like to shed some light on why we are trying 
to repeal the double taxation of dividends. It is no secret if you go 
around this country and talk to manufacturers, talk to farmers, talk to 
small business men and women, that we are in global competition, that 
we are under pressure from trade from China, from Mexico, from other 
areas. One area where our Nation is so uncompetitive is in the area of 
taxes. When you take a look at how dividends are taxed, it is done 
basically like this. First a company makes money, and then it pays 
taxes on that money. Then if it wants to share its earnings with its 
owners, its shareholders, it passes that on to its shareholders in the 
form of a dividend. But in this country, that dividend gets taxed 
again. And so we have double taxation on dividends, which actually 
looks at about 60 to 70 percent of every dollar moving through our 
economy.
  To put it another way, Mr. Chairman, we tax dividend income higher 
than any other industrialized country in the world except for Japan. 
Looking at this chart here, which shows us basically a list of all the 
industrialized countries in the world, the United States of America 
taxes dividend income more than any other country except for Japan. I 
would not want to be Japan because they are entering their second 
decade of recession right now.
  What is accomplished by repealing the double taxation on dividends? 
Who benefits? This is a discussion that we have heard a lot. Mostly who 
benefits by repealing the double taxation on dividends are senior 
citizens. Half of all Americans who receive dividend income are senior 
citizens, and half of all seniors in America receive dividends. But 
more than just that. The people who own stocks, half of all households 
in America own shares in the stock market. People who have pension 
plans, people who have 401(k) plans, people who have IRAs will benefit 
from this because by repealing the double tax on dividends, you are 
increasing the after-tax rate of return on investment. What that means 
is you are increasing the value of all equities in the stock market. 
This is why economists from all over the spectrum, liberal and 
conservative, are telling us that if we repeal the double tax on 
dividends, we will increase the value of the stock market by anywhere 
from 7 to 20 percent. Imagine that, a 20 percent increase in the value 
of stock markets.
  Mr. Chairman, we all heard the stories about seniors who have seen 
their savings portfolio wiped out by the losses in the stock market 
that have occurred over the last year or two. We have seen the stories 
where pensioners, where people getting close to retirement have seen 
their retirement go away to the point they have to go back to work or 
work longer than they had planned. If we can do something that

[[Page 6900]]

would actually improve the value of people's pension funds, IRAs, the 
stock market, that would be a good thing, I would think.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, that is why it is important to do this kind of 
economic policy. If we repeal the double tax on dividends, not only 
will we help senior citizens, not only will we help revive the stock 
market, not only will we help get people their jobs back and grow the 
economy, but we will also help restore good corporate governance to our 
Nation's corporations.
  One of the reasons why the stock market declined so much in this past 
year is because of all that corporate malfeasance that occurred. One of 
the reasons why we have bad decisionmaking in America's boardrooms is 
because in our Tax Code is an incentive to actually grow your 
corporation through borrowing, through debt financing, rather than 
honestly through equity growth. What I mean when I say that is we give 
companies a tax break if they borrow and borrow and borrow to grow 
their companies. And when we go into tough times, like a recession, 
what happens is these companies go bankrupt. That is one of the reasons 
why WorldCom, Global Crossing and all of these companies went bankrupt. 
But if we give companies an incentive to share the wealth with their 
shareholders, to grow their companies honestly through equity, we can 
strike a blow for good corporate governance.
  For many reasons, this is why this economic growth plan makes sense. 
The most important reason, Mr. Chairman, why we are trying to pass this 
budget is, number one, protect our priorities, win the war on 
terrorism, win the war in Iraq, and get people their jobs back. The 
best way to get this economy growing is to let people keep more of what 
they earn and allow businesses to keep more of what they make.
  One of the other great provisions in this tax bill is the fact that 
we lower the small business tax rate down to the level of large 
corporations. What we do not see that is being offered later in the 
budgets that are the alternative budgets, the Blue Dog budget, the 
Spratt budget, is that they raise taxes. They actually raise taxes on 
small businesses. What we are doing here is recognizing the fact that 
today, this very day, we are taxing small businesses at a higher tax 
rate than we tax large corporations in America. And so what we are 
simply trying to do is lower the tax rates on small businesses, not 
below the tax rate that large corporations pay, but down to the tax 
rate that large corporations pay.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this budget, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who understands that 
Michigan is going to lose almost $3 billion in funds for SCHIP and 
Medicaid under the Republican budget.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the siren song again, but let 
us look at the facts. First of all, as to veterans, this is undeniable, 
and I want to read it: The reconciliation instructions in the 
Republican plan require $14.6 billion in unspecified reductions in 
veterans' benefits. This $14.6 billion cut represents a cut of 3.8 
percent in mandatory spending below the levels in current law, and we 
are doing this on this day.
  Secondly, as to the income figures, for families with incomes below 
$75,000, they are not going to receive this big boon as stated in terms 
of the dividend tax cut. They will receive an average tax benefit of 
$42. And for the families that are in the middle 20 percent, the 
average is not in the thousands under the tax cut of the Republicans, 
but only $246.
  So what has happened here? A party that once said they had the mantle 
of fiscal responsibility, they are sacrificing that on the altar of 
irresponsible tax cuts; deficits not as far as the eye can see, but 
further than the eye can see. In the long run, all will be hurt except 
the very wealthy as interest rates go up, and, therefore, it impacts on 
our houses and our cars and everything we buy; in the short run, kids 
and their education, veterans, as I mentioned, people who need health 
care, and all of us who need homeland security.
  This is an irresponsible budget and digs a deeper and deeper hole of 
deficits. We have some sound alternatives. Let us vote for them.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Duncan). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, before I yield a final minute to the ranking 
member of the Committee on the Budget, I would like to use part of my 
30 seconds to just suggest to the Chair and thank him for his kind and 
considerate presiding this afternoon. I know that could only come from 
a gentleman with whom I served, John Duncan, Sr., for many years the 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I always say that 
fruit does not fall very far from the tree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I am going to leave it to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) with the remaining time to discuss again the tax cut. It is too 
bad we do not talk more about 42 million uninsured Americans and 
children without education and the things that are being buried by this 
recent war talk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, quickly let me commend to the gentleman's 
reading an excellent piece of work done by the Joint Economic Committee 
staff called an Economic Policy Brief, and in particular to page 8, 
because if you will turn here, we will see that the JEC staff have run 
these same numbers through several established mathematical economic 
models, including two that are used prominently by the White House.
  According to these models, the Democratic alternative will add 1.6 
percentage points to GDP growth in 2003. The Bush alternative, at six 
times the cost, would yield 1.1 percent growth.
  Our proposal would yield or generate 1,122,000 jobs. Theirs, at six 
times the cost, would generate 600,000 jobs.
  If you go down to economy.com, you will find the same results. Our 
proposal generates, according to their model, 1,150,000 jobs for a $138 
billion impact this year; theirs, for $726 billion, generates 640,000 
jobs.

                              {time}  1715

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

                            H. Con. Res. 95

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

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

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

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

[[Page 6901]]

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

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

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

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

Sec. 311. Contingency procedure for surface transportation.

                       Subtitle C--Implementation

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

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2003 through 2013:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,323,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,350,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,519,267,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,662,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,793,142,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,902,740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,017,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,130,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,235,796,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,364,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,502,635,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $36,105,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $116,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $97,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $77,943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $60,024,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $60,237,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $60,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $62,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $191,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $285,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $301,575,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,790,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,838,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,952,639,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,076,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,177,306,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,282,248,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,383,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,481,237,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,597,191,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,704,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,832,479,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $1,776,895,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,847,887,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,943,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,045,680,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,139,077,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,244,487,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,350,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,451,698,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,574,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,667,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,803,936,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $453,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $497,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $423,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $382,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $345,935,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $341,747,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $333,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $320,831,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $338,585,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $302,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $301,301,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $6,687,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $7,264,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $7,794,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,302,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $8,777,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,251,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $9,719,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,179,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $10,660,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,112,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $11,564,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2003: $3,858,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004: $4,179,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,416,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $4,597,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $4,720,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $4,819,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $4,889,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $4,926,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $4,963,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $4,949,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $4,918,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2003 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $392,494,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $386,229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $420,071,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,237,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $440,185,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,011,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $460,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $438,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $480,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $462,861,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $494,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $480,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $507,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $497,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $522,103,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $516,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $536,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $523,884,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $551,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,541,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,631,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,271,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,344,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,303,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,775,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,284,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,466,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,006,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,576,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,771,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,591,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,082,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,344,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,690,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,899,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,504,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,799,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,134,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,393,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,583,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:

[[Page 6902]]

       (A) New budget authority, $2,707,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $961,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,244,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,022,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,085,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,781,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,955,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,288,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,401,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,293,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,816,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,940,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,253,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,203,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,453,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,335,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,463,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,438,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,752,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,626,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,251,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,600,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,418,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,363,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,567,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,543,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,998,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,526,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,781,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,390,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,155,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,413,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,881,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,405,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,494,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,637,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,970,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,774,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,952,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,141,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,042,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,259,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,056,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,806,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,917,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,718,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,538,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,297,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,881,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,552,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,084,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,915,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,789,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,283,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,640,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,251,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,137,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,356,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,119,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,351,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,702,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,803,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,146,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,468,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,524,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,892,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,288,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,748,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,639,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,650,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,417,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,811,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,393,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,935,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,832,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,602,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $221,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $218,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $235,103,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $235,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,663,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,358,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $283,363,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,780,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,637,000,000.

[[Page 6903]]

       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $324,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $322,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $345,696,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $344,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $370,681,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $369,399,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,391,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $394,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $423,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $422,447,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,538,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $266,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,932,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,912,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $319,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $344,656,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $344,943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $370,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $370,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $396,931,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $396,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $424,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $425,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $452,618,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $455,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $489,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $486,064,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $528,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $528,861,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $326,588,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $334,373,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,485,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $321,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $325,921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $329,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $331,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $334,216,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $336,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $338,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $344,748,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $345,993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $352,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $353,901,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,370,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $361,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $374,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $375,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $377,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $378,358,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $391,496,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $392,351,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,222,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,451,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,451,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,975,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,827,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,235,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,481,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,597,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,567,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,119,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,847,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,348,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,696,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,222,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,867,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,198,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,313,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,898,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,676,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,966,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,884,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,639,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,669,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,891,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,855,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,459,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,808,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,471,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,779,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,038,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,976,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,737,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,789,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,584,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,208,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,874,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,881,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,374,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,741,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,670,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,916,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $342,042,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $342,042,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,472,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $367,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $389,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $410,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $410,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $429,676,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $429,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $450,251,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $450,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $471,470,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $489,580,000,000.

[[Page 6904]]

       (B) Outlays, $489,580,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, -$15,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,894,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,459,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,685,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$56,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$56,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$59,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$61,229,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,229,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submission Providing for Economic Growth and Tax 
     Simplification and Fairness.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than April 11, 2003, the House 
     committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After 
     receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in law within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to--
       (1) reduce the total level of revenues by not more than: 
     $35,420,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $112,785,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2004, $387,719,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2008, and $662,874,000,000 for the period 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2013; and
       (2) increase the level of direct spending for that 
     committee by $4,380,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2003, 
     $1,111,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, 
     $17,393,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008, and $23,096,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
       (B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to increase the 
     level of direct spending for that committee by $3,600,000,000 
     in new budget authority for fiscal year 2003 and outlays 
     flowing therefrom.
       (b) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste, 
     Fraud, and Abuse in Mandatory Programs.--
       (1) Findings and purpose.--(A) The Congress finds that--
       (i) the Inspector General of the Department of Education 
     has found that nearly 23 percent of recipients whose loans 
     were discharged due to disability claims were gainfully 
     employed;
       (ii) based on data provided by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, the House Committee on the Budget estimates that more 
     than $8 billion in erroneous earned income tax payments are 
     made each year;
       (iii) the Office of Management and Budget estimates that 
     erroneous payments for food stamps account for almost 9 
     percent of total benefits;
       (iv) mismanagement of more than $3 billion in trust funds 
     controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs led the Congress 
     to take extraordinary measures to regain control of the these 
     funds;
       (v) in its Semiannual Reports to Congress, the Inspector 
     General of the Office of Personnel Management has documented 
     numerous instances of the Government continuing to make 
     electronic payments for retirement benefits through the Civil 
     Service Retirement System after the death of the eligible 
     annuitants; and
       (vi) numerous other examples of waste, fraud, and abuse are 
     reported regularly by government watchdog agencies.
       (B) It is, therefore, the purpose of this subsection to 
     utilize the reconciliation process to eliminate waste, fraud, 
     and abuse in mandatory programs.
       (2) In general.--Not later than July 18, 2003, the House 
     committees named in paragraph (3) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget to carry 
     out this subsection. 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.
       (3) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $600,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2004, $5,532,000,000 in outlays for the period of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $18,618,000,000 in 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
       (B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     level of direct spending for that committee by $261,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $2,596,000,000 in outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and 
     $9,421,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2013.
       (C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $2,397,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2004, $25,265,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $107,359,000,000 in 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
       (D) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee 
     on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $62,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2004, $678,000,000 in outlays for the period of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $2,864,000,000 in outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
       (E) Committee on government reform.--The House Committee on 
     Government Reform shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $1,072,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2004, $10,371,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $38,319,000,000 in 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013. For 
     the purposes of this subparagraph and section 310 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, a reduction in outlays 
     submitted pursuant to this subparagraph that results from 
     changes in programs within the jurisdiction of other 
     committees shall count as a reduction in outlays for the 
     Committee on Government Reform.
       (F) Committee on house administration.--The House Committee 
     on House Administration shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $4,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2004, $26,000,000 in outlays for the period of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $88,000,000 in outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
       (G) Committee on international relations.--The House 
     Committee on International Relations shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level 
     of direct spending for that committee by $157,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 2004, $1,293,000,000 in outlays for 
     the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and 
     $4,468,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2013.
       (H) Committee on the Judiciary.--The House Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $86,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2004, $727,000,000 in outlays for the period of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $2,404,000,000 in outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
       (I) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on 
     Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $40,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2004, $345,000,000 in outlays for the period of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $1,105,000,000 in outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.

[[Page 6905]]

       (J) Committee on science.--The House Committee on Science 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that 
     committee by $1,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, 
     $6,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2008, and $15,000,000 in outlays for the period of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
       (K) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $114,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $1,099,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, 
     and $3,702,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2013.
       (L) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $449,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2004, $4,221,000,000 in outlays for the period of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $14,626,000,000 in 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
       (M) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $1,971,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2004, $17,704,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $61,547,000,000 in 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

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

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

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

     SEC. 302. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICAID.

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

     SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR BIOSHIELD.

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

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

     SEC. 311. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.--In the 
     House, if the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment 
     thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted, that provides new budget authority for the budget 
     accounts or portions thereof in the highway and transit 
     categories as defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in 
     excess of the following amounts:
       (1) for fiscal year 2004: $39,135,000,000,
       (2) for fiscal year 2005: $39,786,000,000,
       (3) for fiscal year 2006: $40,502,000,000,
       (4) for fiscal year 2007: $41,219,000,000, or
       (5) for fiscal year 2008: $42,002,000,000,
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2004 
     and for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to the 
     extent such excess is offset by a reduction in mandatory 
     outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or an increase in 
     receipts appropriated to such fund for the applicable fiscal 
     year caused by such legislation or any previously enacted 
     legislation.
       (b) Adjustment for Outlays.--In the House, if a bill or 
     joint resolution is reported, or if an amendment thereto is 
     offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that 
     changes obligation limitations such that the total 
     limitations are in excess of $38,496,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2004, for programs, projects, and activities within the 
     highway and transit categories as defined in sections 
     250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 and if legislation has been 
     enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in subsection 
     (a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may increase the allocation of outlays for such 
     fiscal year for the committee reporting such measure by the 
     amount of outlays that corresponds to such excess obligation 
     limitations, but not to exceed the amount of such excess that 
     was offset pursuant to subsection (a).

                       Subtitle C--Implementation

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

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

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

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

       (a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported 
     in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation 
     or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an 
     amendment thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
       (b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may 
     be provided for fiscal year

[[Page 6906]]

     2005 and fiscal years 2005 and 2006 for programs, projects, 
     activities or accounts identified in the joint explanatory 
     statement of managers accompanying this resolution under the 
     heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in 
     an aggregate amount not to exceed $23,178,000,000 in new 
     budget authority.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2004 that first 
     becomes available for any fiscal year after 2004.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

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

                TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND ENFORCEMENT

                       Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

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

                        Subtitle B--Enforcement

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

                 TITLE IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2013:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,441,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,604,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,746,972,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,863,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,981,577,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,099,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,226,842,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,460,796,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,637,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,778,210,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $30,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $12,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$6,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$10,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$21,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$33,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$33,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $0.
       Fiscal year 2013: $0.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,843,018,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,951,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,071,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,171,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,276,515,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,373,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,472,581,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,585,874,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,662,041,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,768,930,000,000.
         (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,851,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,942,306,000.000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,045,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,140,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,249,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,355,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,461,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,586,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,653,413,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,776,371,000,000.
         (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $409,781,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $337,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $298,326,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $276,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $267,599,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $256,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $234,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $125,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $15,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $-1,839,000,000.
         (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public 
     debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $7,179,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $7,621,902,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,048,310,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $8,457,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $8,861,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $9,258,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $9,637,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $9,911,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $10,082,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $10,239,283,000,000.
         (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $4,072,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,221,902,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $4,321,310,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $4,378,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $4,406,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $4,404,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $4,361,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $4,191,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $3,895,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,568,283,000,000.

     SEC. 102. HOMELAND SECURITY.

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

     SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

         The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2004

[[Page 6907]]

     through 2013 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $420,071,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $440,185,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $460,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $438,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $480,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $462,861,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $494,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $480,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $507,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $497,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $522,103,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $516,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $536,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $523,884,000,000.
       (A) New budget authority, $551,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,541,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,681,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,917,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,603,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,611,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,604,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,413,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,689,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,565,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,005,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,298,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,503,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,618,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,112,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,949,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,722,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,833,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,006,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,183,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,687,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,520,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,062,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,198,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,741,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,446,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,823,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,319,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,386,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,359,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,084,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,996,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,384,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,577,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,857,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,684,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,629,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,769,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,629,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,693,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,028,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,296,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,494,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,368,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,111,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,971,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,157,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,550,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,752,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,267,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,472,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,778,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,132,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,337,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,708,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,262,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,786,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,347,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,508,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,731,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,741,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,758,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,299,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,902,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,819,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,306,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):

[[Page 6908]]

       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,628,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,259,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,174,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,756,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,065,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,806,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,205,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,579,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,690,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,896,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,852,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,029,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,277,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,142,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,775,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $240,084,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,037,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $251,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $290,285,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $288,983,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $312,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $310,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $335,314,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $333,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $361,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $359,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $389,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $387,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $419,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $418,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $452,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $451,354,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,376,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $282,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,877,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $318,921,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $344,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $344,725,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $370,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $370,053,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $396,532,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $396,271,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $423,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $424,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $455,875,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $459,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $490,601,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $486,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $526,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $526,559,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $318,262,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $323,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $326,674,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $329,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $334,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,028,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $340,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $342,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $352,461,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $353,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,361,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $375,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $376,077,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $392,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $392,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $383,486,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $384,054,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $398,184,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $398,881,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,502,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,612,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,689,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,698,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,182,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,999,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,005,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,156,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,157,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,670,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,644,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,215,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,680,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,928,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,550,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,275,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,923,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,399,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,329,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,902,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,271,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,938,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,318,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,299,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,306,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,682,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,015,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,938,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,208,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,776,000,000.

[[Page 6909]]

       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,643,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,677,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,533,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,619,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,361,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,905,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,121,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $254,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $293,834,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,538,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $325,488,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $329,817,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $344,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $351,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $369,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $375,129,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $386,360,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $401,485,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $397,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,520,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $401,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $422,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $397,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $425,508,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0
       (B) Outlays, $0.0
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0
       (B) Outlays, $0.0
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0
       (B) Outlays, $0.0
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0
       (B) Outlays, $0.0
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.0
       (B) Outlays, $0.0
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,116,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,360,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,040,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$45,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$55,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$57,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$57,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,206,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,753,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$56,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$56,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$58,985,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$58,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$61,522,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$66,358,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,358,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$68,977,000,000.
                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

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

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

       (a) Temporary Increase in Statutory Debt Limit.--The 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House shall report a bill 
     as soon as practicable, but not later than April 11, 2003, 
     that consists solely of changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction to increase the statutory debt limit by 
     $150,000,000,000.
       (b) Point of Order.--(1) Except as provided by subsection 
     (a) or paragraph (2), it shall not be in order in the House 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that includes any provision that increases 
     the limit on the public debt by more than $100,000,000,000.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the House if--
       (A) the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House has made the certification described in section 203 
     that the unified budget will be in balance by fiscal year 
     2009; or
       (B) the President has submitted to Congress a declaration 
     that such increase is necessary to finance costs of a 
     military conflict or address an imminent threat to national 
     security, but which shall not exceed the amount of the 
     adjustment under section 302 for the costs of military 
     operations in Iraq.

     SEC. 203. REVIEW OF BUDGET OUTLOOK.

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

                TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND ENFORCEMENT

                       Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

     SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR HOMELAND SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--In the House, if the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides new budget authority (and outlays 
     flowing therefrom) for the Department of Homeland Security 
     and if the Secretary of Homeland Security so requests, then 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall make the 
     appropriate revisions to the allocations and other levels in 
     this resolution by the amount provided by that measure for 
     that purpose.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security should--

[[Page 6910]]

       (1) conduct a homeland security needs assessment in 
     consultation with all Federal agencies with responsibilities 
     for homeland security and State and local governments; and
       (2) submit a report to Congress with additional funding 
     requests, if any, identified in the needs assessment, and 
     that such report should also include a compilation of the 
     needs assessments submitted by State and local governments.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

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

     SEC. 305. RESERVE FUND FOR BIOSHIELD.

       In the House, if the appropriate committee of jurisdiction 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment 
     thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted, that establishes a program to accelerate the 
     research, development, and purchase of biomedical threat 
     countermeasures and--
       (1) such measure provides new budget authority to carry out 
     such program; or
       (2) such measure authorizes discretionary new budget 
     authority to carry out such program and the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution that 
     provides new budget authority to carry out such program,

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

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

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

                        Subtitle B--Enforcement

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 313. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS IN THE HOUSE.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     to consider any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
     thereto, that provides new budget authority that would cause 
     the discretionary spending limits to be exceeded for any 
     fiscal year.
       (b) Discretionary Spending Limits.--In the House and as 
     used in this section, the term ``discretionary spending 
     limit'' means--
       (8) with respect to fiscal year 2004--
       (A) for the defense category: $399,683,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $389,746,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the nondefense category: $392,517,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $429,054,000,000 in outlays;
       (9) with respect to fiscal year 2005--
       (A) for the defense category: $420,019,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $409,737,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the nondefense category: $393,481,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $440,264,000,000 in outlays;
       (10) with respect to fiscal year 2006--
       (A) for the defense category: $440,044,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $422,808,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the nondefense category: $402,256,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $446,992,000,000;
       (11) with respect to fiscal year 2007--
       (A) for the defense category: $460,309,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $436,164,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the nondefense category: $412,091,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $455,236,000,000;

[[Page 6911]]

       (12) with respect to fiscal year 2008--
       (A) for the defense category: $480,747,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $460,190,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the nondefense category: $494,853,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $465,710,000,000;
     as adjusted in conformance with subsection (c).
       (c) Adjustments.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Chairman.--After the reporting of a bill or joint 
     resolution, the offering of an amendment thereto, or the 
     submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget may make the adjustments set 
     forth in subparagraph (B) for the amount of new budget 
     authority in that measure (if that measure meets the 
     requirements set forth in paragraph (2)) and the outlays 
     flowing from that budget authority. The chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may also make appropriate adjustments 
     for the reserve funds set forth in sections 301, 302, and 
     303.
       (B) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) are to be made to--
       (i) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in 
     the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (ii) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (iii) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in the 
     appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (2) Amounts of adjustments.--The adjustment referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) an amount provided and designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 314;
       (B) an amount appropriated for homeland security as 
     provided in section 301;
       (C) an amount appropriated for military operations in Iraq 
     as provided in section 302; and
       (D) an amount provided for transportation under section 
     304.
       (3) Application of adjustments.--The adjustments made for 
     legislation pursuant to paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) apply while that legislation is under consideration;
       (B) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and
       (C) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (4) Application of this section.--The provisions of this 
     section shall apply to legislation providing new budget 
     authority for fiscal years 2003 through 2008.
       (d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--(1) It 
     shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to 
     consider a rule or order that waives the application of this 
     section.
       (2)(A) This subsection shall apply only to the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of 
     order under this section must specify the precise language on 
     which it is premised.
       (C) As disposition of points of order under this section, 
     the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
     respect to the proposition that is the subject of the points 
     of order.
       (D) A question of consideration under this section shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes by each Member initiating a point of 
     order and for 10 minutes by an opponent on each point of 
     order, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn or that the 
     Committee of the Whole rise, as the case may be.
       (E) The disposition of the question of consideration under 
     this subsection with respect to a bill or joint resolution 
     shall be considered also to determine the question of 
     consideration under this subsection with respect to an 
     amendment made in order as original text.

     SEC. 314. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

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

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

       (a) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House to 
     consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that 
     would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget 
     deficit for any one of the three applicable time periods as 
     measured in paragraphs (5) and (6).
       (2) Applicable time periods.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means any 1 
     of the 3 following periods:
       (A) The first year covered by the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (B) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the 
     most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (C) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5 
     fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget.
       (3) Direct-spending legislation.--For purposes of this 
     subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term 
     ``direct-spending legislation'' means any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report that affects 
     direct spending as that term is defined by, and interpreted 
     for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.
       (4) Exclusion.--For purposes of this subsection, the terms 
     ``direct-spending legislation'' and ``revenue legislation'' 
     do not include--
       (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (B) any reconciliation bill reported pursuant to section 
     201 of this resolution;
       (C) any provision of legislation that affects the full 
     funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance 
     guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of 
     the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990; or
       (D) any legislation for which an adjustment is made under 
     section 302.
       (5) Baseline.--Estimates prepared pursuant to this section 
     shall--
       (A) use the baseline surplus or deficit used for the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget as 
     adjusted for any changes in revenues or direct spending 
     assumed by such resolution; and

[[Page 6912]]

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

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

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

     SEC. 317. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST COSTS.

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

     SEC. 318. DYNAMIC SCORING OF TAX LEGISLATION.

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

                 TITLE IV--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

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

     SEC. 402. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TAX REFORM.

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog plan that we are offering today combines 
short-term economic stimulus and immediate tax relief for all taxpayers 
with long-term fiscal discipline to balance the budget by 2009 and 
return to saving the Social Security surplus by 2013. The Blue Dog 
budget has nearly $2 trillion less debt than the President's budget 
from the year 2003 to 2013. The Blue Dog budget calls for tough 
spending limits by adopting the President's overall spending levels but 
does not rely on unreasonable or unrealistic spending cuts from the 
President's proposal.
  The Blue Dog budget will hold Congress accountable for the increase 
in the debt tax by limiting increases in the debt limit and requiring 
regular votes by Congress to raise the debt limit until the budget is 
on the path towards balance.
  We strongly support the President in the war on terrorism and in 
keeping a strong defense. Our budget provides the President with 
everything he requested for defense and homeland security and sets 
aside a reserve fund for additional funding for homeland security if 
the administration requests it. The Blue Dog budget is good policy, 
plain and simple. For every $1,000 each taxpayer sends to Washington, 
an income tax roughly $180 goes to pay the interest on our national 
debt. The Blue Dog budget reduces that burden while the Republican 
budget increases that burden. That is what we call the ``debt tax.'' 
Eighteen percent of the Federal budget, over $2,500 per person, over 
$4,000 per family, and it only gets worse if we follow their plan. Bob 
Dole called it the stealth tax in 1996. It was mentioned in a 1995 
Republican-authored resolution, and it was referenced in the first 
plank of the 1994 Republican Contract with America.
  The debt tax is money that goes towards nothing, and it is a tax that 
cannot be repealed. It does not make our Nation stronger. It does not 
make health care more affordable. It does not make our schools better. 
It does not provide more jobs, and it surely does not make our economy 
more robust.
  It is time to get back on the track towards balancing the Federal 
budget. We cannot and should not send our troops, our brave men and 
women, into battle, then saddle them with the bill. It is not the right 
thing to do, and everybody in this body knows it. The Blue Dog budget 
will restore fiscal responsibility, stability, and accountability to 
Federal budgeting process. A great American from the great State of 
Tennessee once said that no nation has ever been free, strong, and 
broke.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as I may consume. I 
respectfully claim the time in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously I support the work of the committee, the 
underlying resolution, the budget resolution that is forwarded today. I 
want to thank the Blue Dog Coalition for coming forth with yet another 
budget proposal this year. I believe this is a consistent track record 
for the Blue Dogs in providing a budget resolution for consideration. 
We will disagree with

[[Page 6913]]

that budget here today as they disagree with our budget, but I want to 
start by complimenting them because even last year at a time when the 
minority did not come forward with a caucus position, the Blue Dogs 
did. And the so-called Blue Dogs in this instance have done so again 
and I want to respect that. Only people who have actually gone through 
the process of writing a budget know how difficult that task can be in 
making some of the choices one has to make in order to arrive at this.
  I disagree with their approach, however, for a number of reasons. 
First of all, I do not believe what they are putting forward supports 
our economy. I believe what we need right now is a growth package. The 
President has put that forward. We indicated that the second most 
important part of our budget is providing growth to the economy to 
create jobs. We believe we need tax simplification. We believe we need 
tax reform. We believe we need to lower the tax on the American people 
at a time of recession, not just for the sake of lowering taxes but 
because we know, we have seen this happen in the past many times in 
history where when we reduce the tax burden on America, when we reduce 
it particularly to a level at or below the average of taxes and 
revenues compared to the gross domestic product, that that does have a 
growth effect, a stimulative effect, on the economy.
  And so while we will agree today on national defense and homeland 
security, probably the biggest departure we will see between these two 
budgets is regarding growth in the economy and creating jobs. We just 
happen to believe on our side that getting a growth package through to 
create jobs is vitally important. We are also going to have a 
semantical debate here today. I do not want to throw gasoline on the 
fire, so I am going to try not to. But I have to say that if we are not 
going to continue an already-reduced reduction in taxes, I mean I do 
not know what we call that. I know many on my side have come down here 
and I know it makes my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition cringe when 
they hear it when we have heard on our side that that be explained as a 
tax increase, but you might be able to understand why you cringe when 
you see us cringe when a reduction in the anticipated increase is 
called a cut.
  And time after time today we have seen Members come to the floor on 
the other side of the aisle and explain that we are making excruciating 
cuts in veterans and education and Medicare and Medicaid and all sorts 
of different programs when in fact that is simply not the case. One not 
only cannot find it within our budget document, but in fact that is not 
the choice that we request. What we request is that we go through the 
budget and we look for waste, fraud, and abuse and places where we have 
been spending money we did not have to, and we do not have all of them 
but these are just some examples that you do not ask us to go after: 
Foreign Assistance, the Effectiveness and Accountability of Problems 
Common to U.S. Programs, Taking Strategic Approach for DOD and the 
Acquisition of Services, Implementation of an Electronic Benefit 
Transfer System in the Food Stamp Program, IRS's Efforts to Improve 
Compliance with the Employment Tax.
  I mean, all of these save money. All of these find places where we 
are just not doing a good job. All of these ought to be a hearing. All 
of these ought to be a place where we can introduce legislation and we 
can say that is not a cut. To go through this and to actually look at 
the General Accounting Office, and we pay them a lot of money. Talk 
about waste. If you are going to hire people to go through the programs 
from the General Accounting Office and then you do not even listen to 
them, my friend, the comptroller general, would not like my saying 
this, but why do we hire these folks to give us these good ideas of 
places we can reduce spending, not cutting benefits, not cutting 
services, not closing nursing homes, not cutting off senior citizens, 
not eliminating Meals on Wheels or food stamps or school lunches or, 
oh, my goodness, all of the things that people have come down here 
wringing their hands about today, but just going through here: 
Controlling the Weakness in Property Vulnerable to Improper Use, Loss 
and Theft. There is a real partisan issue, theft. I mean if we are 
stealing things from agencies, from departments, and I have heard 
everything from a 61-inch television; I mean, come on.
  Does that balance the budget? No. We are not suggesting that alone 
balances the budget, but we have got to start somewhere.
  I could go on. The Deteriorating Financial Outlook and the Need for 
Transformation in the Postal Service, Medicare, Medicaid, FAA. Here is 
one, let us see, Significant Weakness in the Computer Controls. And, in 
fact, I believe we spent $8 million trying to get the Department of 
Agriculture to go to a new computer system; and guess what, after I 
think 8 years and $8 million, they found out they could not go to the 
new system. So we just spent $8 million for nothing on that. Defense 
Acquisitions, Debt Collection, Food Stamps. Again, there is another 
one. But if we even look at food stamps, people will say we are somehow 
throwing the poor out in the street. Medicare, here we go again. Boy, 
do not touch Medicare, though. Do not even look there. Heaven forbid. 
It must be a perfect program. Just add more benefits, and it will be 
fine. I mean, we could go on and on. They are replete. I have got a 
whole pile over on this side. You do not look at that. And that is an 
important area where we believe it is time to challenge the committees 
to do the work to find the savings.
  Last but not least, I believe that it is time that we do something 
together around here, and that is enforce the budget. I know that we 
are going to disagree today on a number of these topics. The thing that 
is so frustrating is when time after time Members, and it happens in 
the Blue Dogs, it happens on our side as well, where we come down here, 
we talk about our budgets and then during the appropriations process we 
blow through those things. We find different ways to come through the 
process without holding to the budget that we agreed to. I would hope 
that my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition more than anybody else, and I 
know they do, believe that once we have a budget, it is time to enforce 
it because if we cannot even enforce that, having this debate today is 
going to be meaningless.
  So as I started off with today, we do not support just allowing these 
tax cuts to expire. We happen to believe that does increase the tax 
burden. We want to make sure that we have spending restraint. You claim 
to do it with interest payments; but we want to do it with actual 
spending, not just with interest payments; and we want to make sure 
that we figure out a way to grow the economy and create jobs. And for 
those reasons I respectfully oppose the Blue Dog budget, but wish them 
congratulations on actually creating one which is something that many 
people around here claim they want to do, but do not always accomplish.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, 
but I want to use a portion of my time commending him, but I wanted to 
ask the gentleman a question.
  Mr. NUSSLE. What?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I will when it comes my time, but I will do it on my 
own time, but I am curious because it seems to me over the last 8 years 
you talk about your party has been in control. So all of the points 
that you make with the blue books, why have we not done it?

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I can tell the 
gentleman why. It is a frustration of mine, and it is the reason why I 
put the budget out that I did this year.
  When we got to surplus, and we have seen the chart, when we got to 
balancing and began going into surplus, particularly into discretionary 
spending, all of us around here very cheerfully started getting into a 
bidding

[[Page 6914]]

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

[[Page 6915]]

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

                              {time}  1745

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

[[Page 6916]]


       The Federal debt is still growing. On February 28, 2003, 
     the public debt was $6,445,790,102,794.08.
       The public debt has increased by more than $802 billion 
     since Congress passed the President's first budget plan on 
     May 9, 2001. The debt grew $442,337,086,210.23 in the 12 
     months from February 28, 2002 to February 28, 2003.
       There is no surplus except in trust funds. In the first 
     four months of fiscal year 2003, the Treasury reported a 
     budget deficit of $97.6 billion. However, the trust funds for 
     Social Security, Medicare, military retirement, and federal 
     employees retirement collected $90.2 billion in surpluses to 
     fund future benefits. Outside these trust funds, the federal 
     government ran a deficit of $187.8 billion.
       During fiscal year 2002, Social Security added $159 billion 
     to its surplus, and the trust funds for Medicare, military 
     retirement, and federal employee retirement added to total of 
     $68 billion in surplus funds. Outside those trust funds, the 
     federal government ran a deficit of $386 billion. The 
     Congressional Budget Office reported that fiscal year 2002 
     had the largest percentage decrease in revenues in 56 years 
     and the largest percentage increase in spending in 20 years.
       We spend almost one billion dollars per day on interest. 
     The Treasury spent $332.5 billion on interest on the debt in 
     fiscal year 2002. Military spending totaled $332.1 billion, 
     slightly less than the interest expense, despite a 14 percent 
     increase to fight the war on terrorism. Medicare spending 
     totaled $256 billion, $77 billion less than we spent on 
     interest.

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

[[Page 6917]]

that the American people expect this Congress to set its priorities and 
to pay for those priorities, and that is something that we have been 
unwilling to do in the last couple of years.
  What do I mean by that? It means that we have to have discipline on 
the spending side. We had that in 1997 when we, in a bipartisan way, 
sat down with the administration, which was in Democratic hands, and we 
sat down with the Republican-controlled Senate and House and made an 
agreement to set spending caps, and we made an agreement to get this 
budget into balance by 2003, and we did it 3 years ahead of schedule.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to vote for the Blue Dog budget 
and reject the Republican budget.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to announce and show the audience here in the Chamber that the 
Concord Coalition, which is a national watchdog organization on the 
budget, issued a press statement today; and I want to just quote 
briefly from that:
  ``The Blue Dog budget does the best job of balancing short term 
concerns with long term fiscal discipline. The Blue Dog budget is 
clearly superior to the alternatives. It strikes a prudent balance 
among competing priorities by restraining spending and limiting newer 
expanded tax cuts to those that have an immediate impact and minimum 
long term cost.''

                              {time}  1800

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

[[Page 6918]]

  I find it very interesting that today in the Committee on the 
Judiciary we were supposed to have passing out a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. As many know, I am for it. I am a 
cosponsor of it. One of the happiest days in my life was when we passed 
it on this floor; one of the saddest days was when it went down by one 
vote in the Senate.
  Had that passed in the Senate, they could not bring their budget to 
the floor today. The only budget we will vote on today is this budget 
right here, the blue one, the Blue Dog line, that shows that we will 
balance without using Social Security in 2013. They could not do it had 
we had a constitutional restraint. Yet some on the gentleman's side 
have the audacity to suggest that the budget is a good one; but yet we 
want to have a constitutional amendment to require us to do what we are 
not willing to do when we have a chance of doing it.
  In 1999 the Republican leadership issued a statement pledging to 
protect the Social Security surplus: ``As leaders of the House of 
Representatives, we will not schedule any legislation that spends one 
penny of the Social Security trust fund. This leadership is committed 
to ending the 30-year raid on seniors and paying down the debt.''
  We could not help 9-11-01, and we cannot help the fact that our 
economy has gone south, but we can stop digging the hole deeper as of 
today. That is what the Blue Dog budget does. It is the only budget 
that stops digging the hole deeper.
  Now, one area we cut below the President, and our spending levels, I 
repeat, in this budget we do not spend one penny more than President 
Bush asked us to spend, one penny; but there is one area we want to cut 
below the President. We want to cut $420 billion out of the President's 
budget and somewhat less out of the chairman's budget for interest on 
the national debt. They can bring out all of the blue books, they have 
been there when the gentleman's party has been in charge, and some of 
us on this side would like to work with them. But they constantly and 
consistently deny us that opportunity, which, if they pass their budget 
today, once again, they deny us the opportunity.
  We had a better budget 2 years ago. The economic situation of this 
country would not be as bad. I ask Members to support the Blue Dog 
budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. I have enormous respect for the 
gentleman from Texas and for my friends for writing a budget, because 
writing a budget in Washington, D.C. for the Federal Government is not 
maybe the most challenging job in Washington, but it does have its 
moments of challenges.
  Probably one of the biggest challenges in writing a budget, as my 
friends know, is when we have to explain to politicians who get elected 
by saying yes that sometimes we have to say no, or sometimes we have to 
do things that are difficult.
  There is no question that when I wrote the original draft of this 
budget, I asked my colleagues to do something that was difficult. It 
maybe was more difficult than I had either the right to ask or the 
ability to ask; but I asked it, not because I thought it was easy, but 
because I thought it was important for us to at least begin the debate.
  Particularly in Medicare, that is a debate that I recognize probably 
as being difficult maybe more than most Members because I have spent 
the last 12 years being stung by attacks from opponents back home who, 
in years where we did nothing to Medicare, were able to come up with 
phantom votes here and there suggesting that somehow, again, as a 
Republican, I think maybe just because I registered to vote as a 
Republican, that somehow I was cutting Medicare. It must be something 
that is just automatic when you become a Republican, it seems, these 
days.
  But it could not be further from the truth. When it comes to our 
budgets in Medicare and so many of these programs, as my friends know, 
particularly since 1998, we have just been spending money around here 
like it is going out of style in every category. We almost cannot name 
a category that has gone down by any significant portion over the last 
5 years, in particular, since we got the balance.
  So it was not so much that I was saying cut, but I was saying slow 
down. That is all I was trying to say was slow down. That is what I was 
trying to say in Medicare was slow down. We had put $400 billion in. I 
asked them to look for that waste within Medicare. We know it is there. 
I have three great examples that came out of those blue books we were 
talking about.
  The Medicare program pays as much as eight times, just think about 
this, I would say to my friends, eight times the cost of any other 
Federal agency when we pay for the same drugs and medical supplies. I 
do not know, maybe double would be a reasonable level; but eight times 
does not make much sense to me.
  Medicare provides overpayments of $12.1 billion in 1 year. All right? 
That is just another example.
  In 2002, it was estimated that improper, and that is in addition to 
overpayments, we are talking about just plain improper, fraudulent 
payments under Medicare were estimated at $13 billion. Let me quickly 
do the math: 13, 12, that is 25. We do not even know what the cost of 
the drugs are, but that is $25 billion in 1 year, as an example.
  I do not know about the other Members, but that pays for a lot of 
prescription drugs for seniors. Just in the first year of the drug 
benefit that almost all of us support, we are only talking about $7 
billion as a drug benefit. That is just the first year of the phase-in. 
That is three times, almost four times, the amount of the initial drug 
benefit we waste in the Medicare program. That is before we even talk 
about reimbursements.
  My friend, the gentleman from Texas, and I have been laboring on the 
Rural Health Care Coalition since I think the day the gentleman walked 
in this place, and certainly the day I walked in. Medicare is not 
serving our seniors because of a crazy reimbursement system that has 
been out there. But we come down here to the well and we say, oh, gosh, 
do not touch that, it is Medicare.
  Heaven forbid we would try and do something around here in any of 
these programs in order to try to control them, because around here in 
Washington our level of compassion and concern has been equal to the 
amount of money we are willing to put into the program.
  So instead of saying to Medicare, the Defense Department, 
agriculture, I do not care what it is, instead of saying, where did 
that $13 billion go; we are not going to give it to you again next year 
until you find it, instead, what we say is, oh, quick, quick, let us 
pass a budget that puts in $400 billion more.
  Let us hurry up and do that because heaven forbid we would look at a 
senior citizen straight in the eye and say, Do you know what? The 
program is not working as well as it should. It is not doing the job we 
promised; it is wasting money.
  So that is what I was asking for. The gentleman is right, I did not 
get the votes for that. We will live to have that discussion another 
day because my guess is that in order for the actual bill to come to 
the floor, we are going to have to make some of those adjustments.
  I could go on. That is the most politically sensitive one in the 
bunch. I could go on and on through less politically sensitive issues. 
But what I am asking us to do, and it is article 1 of the Constitution 
that I believe gives us that responsibility. The gentleman showed a 
chart that defines it by President. I could show a chart, and I know we 
are talking about the partisan jabs, I could show a chart that showed 
the exact same figures but showed them under Republican and Democratic 
Congresses.

                              {time}  1815

  It does not matter, as I said to my friend from Mississippi, it does 
not matter what happened in the past. It matters what we look to do in 
the future. My colleagues have got a plan. We disagree with it because 
it does not, we do not believe, do the one thing

[[Page 6919]]

that we believe can help us here the most, and that is stimulate the 
growth in the economy that brings in so much of the revenue that we 
need.
  The second thing it really does not do, and we disagree with the 
President on this, mostly not because we disagree with the President, 
but because it is our job to control spending. If we do not do it by 
the time the bill gets to his desk, it is not going to get done, and so 
that is why we asked for the waste, fraud and abuse within these 
reconciliation instructions.
  Last but not least, and I think my friend wants us to yield, the 
balanced budget amendment, and I am a cosponsor and have been and voted 
for it. The one problem with a balanced budget amendment, of course, is 
it takes about 8 years to get it into place, and what we said in 1995 
and what we are both saying here today in a bipartisan way, regardless 
of our plan, let us just do it. Forget about the amendment for a 
second. Let us do it. Let us actually go in and balance it as opposed 
to just saying that we ought to have a constitutional amendment to do 
it.
  The one thing the balanced budget amendment does provide is an 
exception. Two things actually. One is national emergency, and 
certainly I think September 11, obviously we in a bipartisan way agree 
that that is a national emergency; and the second is war, and clearly, 
we are in a war. So while I support that, I think we ought to just do 
it.
  We put ourselves on a path under both of our plans, but we believe 
ours is a better path, and that is the reason.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would just say there are 35 Blue Dogs 
that stand ready to work with the gentleman's side on every one of the 
issues in the blue books that my colleague had up. If we would have the 
same spirit on those issues that we have had by allowing us to have 
this 1 hour this year, which we were not allowed to have last year, we 
would have made a lot of progress on this.
  The fact that my colleagues were kind enough this year to allow the 
Blue Dogs to have 1 hour of debate so we can have this discussion, we 
do think it is a better plan, but it is up to the will of the majority 
of the House as to whether our plan is better than my colleagues. We 
will stand by the will of the majority.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
comments.
  As I say, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's and the Blue Dogs' 
substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hill).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 78]

                               AYES--174

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

                               NOES--254

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

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

                              {time}  1838

  Messrs. EVERETT, TURNER of Ohio, FRANKS of Arizona, FERGUSON, ENGLISH 
and GILCHREST changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GUTIERREZ, EDWARDS, COSTELLO and Mrs. BONO changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.

[[Page 6920]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, on House rollcall vote 78, on 
the Hill Substitute to H. Con. Res. 95, I mistakenly cast my vote as a 
``no''. I intended to vote ``aye'' and support the Hill substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 2 printed in House Report 108-44.


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

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

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

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

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

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

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2003 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $392,494,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $386,229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $420,071,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,237,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $440,185,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,011,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $460,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $438,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $480,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $462,861,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $494,067,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $480,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $507,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $497,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $522,103,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $516,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $536,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $523,884,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $551,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,541,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,626,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,262,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,107,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,221,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,294,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,065,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,873,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,985,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,737,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,771,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,591,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,082,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,344,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,690,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,899,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,503,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,799,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,134,000,000.

[[Page 6921]]

       (B) Outlays, $28,393,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,583,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,707,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,402,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,663,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,085,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,182,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,289,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,402,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,295,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,816,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,940,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,866,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,274,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,940,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,199,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,448,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,331,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,224,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,421,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,615,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,590,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,418,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,966,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,356,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,144,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,799,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,987,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,113,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,415,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,035,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,523,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,239,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,066,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,985,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,651,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,433,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,388,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,881,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,401,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,633,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,628,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,737,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,840,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,785,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,861,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,693,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,293,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,604,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,723,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,228,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,924,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,251,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,137,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,990,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,802,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,146,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,467,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,524,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,857,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,892,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,288,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,702,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,376,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,663,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,640,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,799,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,377,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,615,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,516,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,583,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $221,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $218,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $235,033,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $235,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,561,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,255,000,000.

[[Page 6922]]

       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,324,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $264,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,054,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $283,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $303,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $302,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $323,793,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $322,510,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $345,221,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $343,935,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $370,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $368,888,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $394,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $393,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $423,165,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $421,858,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $261,621,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $275,475,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,402,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $312,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $309,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $332,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $332,299,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $352,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $352,287,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $372,165,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $371,929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $392,052,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $392,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $420,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $423,880,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $453,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $450,312,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $490,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $490,754,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $326,588,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $334,373,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $315,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $321,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $326,452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $329,892,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $332,440,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $334,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $337,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $339,157,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $345,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $347,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $354,493,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $355,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,278,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $363,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $376,326,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $379,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $380,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $393,564,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $394,420,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,222,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,451,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,451,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,975,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,827,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,235,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,481,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,481,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,597,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,710,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,692,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,976,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,320,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,502,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,888,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,158,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,874,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,646,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,805,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,132,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,895,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,963,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,880,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,633,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,884,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,696,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,152,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,451,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,464,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,760,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,552,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,168,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,572,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,294,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,039,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,829,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,323,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $239,741,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $256,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $256,367,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $301,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $301,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $336,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $336,172,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $355,442,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $355,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $368,985,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $368,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $379,976,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $379,976,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,382,000,000.

[[Page 6923]]

       (B) Outlays, $387,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $394,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $394,728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $401,288,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $401,288,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $403,084,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $403,084,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$25,986,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,781,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$58,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$103,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$106,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$134,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$137,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$172,108,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$174,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$184,626,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$187,639,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$197,329,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$200,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$213,132,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$216,854,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$227,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$230,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$244,708,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$248,504,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,894,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,459,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,685,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$56,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$56,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$59,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$61,229,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,229,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

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

[[Page 6924]]

     Transportation and Infrastructure shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction that provide direct spending 
     sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that 
     committee by $438,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, 
     $5,563,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2008, and $16,104,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
       (M) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $1,056,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, 
     $13,449,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008, and $39,848,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.
       (N) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction that provide direct spending sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $8,514,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, 
     $73,579,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008, and $292,553,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

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

     SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICAID.

       In the House, if the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment 
     thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted, that--
       (1) modernizes medicaid and the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program (SCHIP), and
       (2) reduces new budget authority and outlays flowing 
     therefrom by $9,010,000,000 for fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013,

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

     SEC. 302. RESERVE FUND FOR BIOSHIELD.

       In the House, if the appropriate committee of jurisdiction 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment 
     thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted, that establishes a program to accelerate the 
     research, development, and purchase of biomedical threat 
     countermeasures and--
       (1) such measure provides new budget authority to carry out 
     such program; or
       (2) such measure authorizes discretionary new budget 
     authority to carry out such program and the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution that 
     provides new budget authority to carry out such program,

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

     SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR RETIREMENT SECURITY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion or conference report, including measures 
     filed in compliance with Section 4 of this Concurrent 
     Resolution, that propose to change federal revenues the 
     impact of such measure on federal revenues shall be 
     calculated by the Joint Committee on Taxation in a manner 
     that takes into account:
       (1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on:
       i. Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for 
     the Gross Domestic Product;
       ii. Total Domestic Employment;
       iii. Gross Private Domestic Investment;

[[Page 6925]]

       iv. General Price Index;
       v. Interest Rates; and
       vi. Other economic variables
       (2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in 
     economic variables analyzed under subpart (1) of this 
     paragraph.
       (b) the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make 
     any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order 
     to conform this Concurrent Resolution with the determinations 
     made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to paragraph 
     (a) of this Section.

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

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

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

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

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

       (A) Guidance.--In making a designation of a provision of 
     legislation as an emergency requirement under section 
     251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, the committee report and any 
     statement of managers accompanying that legislation shall 
     analyze whether a proposed emergency requirement meets the 
     definition of an ``emergency'' set out in paragraph (b) of 
     this Section.
       (b) The term ``emergency'' means a situation that--
       (1) requires new budget authority and outlays (or new 
     budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom) for the 
     preventions or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or 
     property, or a threat to national security; and
       (2) is unanticipated, which means that the underlying 
     situation is sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary.
       (c) In General.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution, or 
     conference report that contains an emergency designation 
     under section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 unless the proposed 
     emergency requirement meets the definition of an 
     ``emergency'' set out in paragraph (b) of this Section.
       (d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall 
     not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a 
     rule or order that waives the application of paragraph (c) of 
     this section.
       (e) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As 
     disposition of a point of order under paragraph (c) or 
     paragraph (d) of this section, the Chair shall put the 
     question of consideration with respect to the proposition 
     that is the subject of the point of order. A question of 
     consideration under this section shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes by the Member initiating the point of order and for 
     10 minutes by an opponent of the point of order, but shall 
     otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one 
     that the House adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole 
     rise, as the case may be.
       (f) Effect on Amendment in Order as Original Text in the 
     House.-- The disposition of the question of consideration 
     under this section with respect to a bill or joint resolution 
     shall be considered also to determine the question of 
     consideration under this subsection with respect to an 
     amendment made in order as original text.

                      TITLE V--SENSES OF CONGRESS

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

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

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time in 
opposition be divided evenly between the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, I am completely agreeable. That procedure has been our 
custom and practice in the past.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

[[Page 6926]]


  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending the gentleman from 
Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for the outstanding work the gentleman has done. 
The gentleman has worked very hard. Our committee has worked very hard, 
and the budget is a good budget. But I believe the alternative budget 
that I am going to describe right now and that the Republican Study 
Committee is putting forward is a better budget. I want to go over the 
highlights of the differences and engage in this discussion about the 
alternatives.
  Let us look at the major differences. The big difference between the 
Republican Study Committee budget and the committee budget are three.
  First, we provide more tax relief. We provide more tax relief than 
the committee budget does, we provide more tax relief than any of the 
alternative budgets do.
  Number two, we actually cut some spending. Now the committee's budget 
cuts the rate of growth of spending. Our budget actually cuts 
nondefense, not homeland security discretionary spending.
  The third thing is we run smaller deficits and we get back to a 
balanced budget faster than any other budget, including faster than the 
Blue Dog budget that we just heard a lot of discussion about. We do it 
in 4 years, faster than any other, and that is not accounting for the 
faster economic growth that would result from our budget package. Let 
me run through these three areas.
  First on the tax front, we recognize in this budget that we are still 
overtaxed. The fact is that Federal taxes consume about 21 percent of 
national income, and total taxes from all government in our country is 
over a third of national income. This is well above the post-war 
average high. The fact is we are not undertaxed; we are still 
overtaxed. Many of our constituents are facing tax increases at the 
State and local levels. They need to have that off-set, and we can do 
that in our budget.
  Our budget accommodates the President's entire growth package; and 
that is critical because we need to get this economy growing again, so 
we accommodate the elimination of the double taxation of dividends. 
This would end a great inequity in our tax system, a bias in our 
current code, a bias that, frankly, falls disproportionately on older 
Americans; and it would also stimulate economic growth.

                              {time}  1845

  If we follow the wisdom of the President's proposal and eliminate the 
double taxation on dividends, it has a number of positive effects for 
our economy. It would immediately result in higher equity prices, which 
is a good start. The current tax also increases the cost of capital. By 
lowering the cost of capital, we encourage capital formation. It also 
would reduce the current distortion of the allocation of capital. 
Abolishing the double taxation will over time release billions of 
dollars for more productive investment.
  The bottom line is the President's proposal encourages saving and 
investment and capital formation, and that helps sustain economic 
growth. That is why we need to do it.
  We also need to accelerate the phase-in of marginal tax rate 
reductions. When you lower marginal income tax rates, you increase the 
incentive to save and work and invest, and when you increase the 
incentives, you get more savings and work and investment. If we delay 
this any further, we just postpone the beneficial effects.
  In our budget, we accommodate the President's entire tax relief 
package. Then we do something more. We do not specify exactly what that 
would have to be, but, Mr. Chairman, it would be large enough to 
accommodate a 50 percent reduction in capital gains rates, and that 
would also significantly encourage economic growth. That kind of 
capital formation is a precondition for strong economic growth.
  On the spending side, as I said earlier, ours is the only budget that 
makes some real cuts in spending. On the discretionary side, we do not 
cut defense spending. We use the same number that the President has 
proposed and the same number that the committee has proposed. We 
recognize this obligation. We recognize that we are at war. We do not 
cut homeland security funding. On the mandatory spending side, we do 
not touch Social Security at all, we make no changes, and we do not 
actually cut anything in mandatory spending, although we do restrain 
the rate of growth. What we actually do cut is in nondefense, 
nonhomeland security discretionary spending.
  Why is it important to get this spending under control? Because, Mr. 
Chairman, total government spending is the real measure of the burden 
that the government imposes on our economy. More than deficits, more 
than the debt, it is the total amount of money that the government 
sucks out of the private sector, whether it does it by borrowing or 
whether it does it by confiscating people's money, that is the measure 
of the misallocation of capital. We all know there are a lot of vital 
programs that have to be funded, but on the margin we know that this 
spending occurs through a political process where Members are spending 
money to try to get reelected. It is not the allocation of capital that 
individual consumers and businesses would allocate for stronger 
economic growth.
  The other problem with too much spending is the enormous waste. We 
have heard a discussion about that earlier, but the government cannot 
even account for over $17 billion in spending in 2001. The Federal 
Government acknowledges $20 billion in overpayments. The list of 
ridiculous misspent money, missing money, overpayments is a very long 
and a very embarrassing list, frankly. We are never going to wring that 
waste out of government until we impose some spending discipline.
  The fact is government Federal spending, discretionary spending, 
total spending has been growing at several times the rate of inflation, 
and now is the time to rein that in. If we cannot rein that in now, Mr. 
Chairman, when can we rein that in?
  The net budgetary effects of our budget is greater tax relief, modest 
spending discipline, and as a result we run smaller deficits for 
shorter periods of time, and we get back to a balance faster than any 
other budget proposal.
  I heard the Blue Dogs come down on this floor and talk about how much 
they want to balance this budget, how quickly they want to do that, why 
they want to do that. I am glad to hear that. I look forward to their 
voting for our budget because it gets to a balance faster than any 
others.
  The other point I would make is that there can be no doubt that our 
combination of lower taxes and less spending would lead to stronger 
economic growth.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me start by commending 
the gentleman from Iowa. It is always a tough duty to try to carry a 
budget through the House.
  I have a couple of questions. Can the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget confirm that the reconciliation instructions clarify how the 
Committee on Government Reform will be credited with savings resulting 
from legislation that it submits to the Committee on the Budget?
  Mr. NUSSLE. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Does this language ensure that the 
Committee on Government Reform will receive full credit for any savings 
it reports that are consistent with its reconciliation instructions?
  Mr. NUSSLE. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Can the gentleman confirm that the 
Committee on Government Reform may write legislation that also achieves 
significant savings in discretionary programs?
  Mr. NUSSLE. That is correct.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. And can the chairman also confirm that it 
is

[[Page 6927]]

possible to meet the savings targets within the budget resolution 
without making any changes to Federal retirement annuities paid to 
participants in the Civil Service Retirement System, FERS, the Federal 
Employees Retirement System, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I believe that is correct.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the chairman for that 
clarification.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, my constituents find it very difficult to 
understand why at these times that we have economic uncertainty, that 
we are at war, we have large deficits and we are considering a reckless 
new tax cut. This amendment is even worse than the underlying bill. I 
oppose the underlying budget, and I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, budgets speak to choice. What is important? I am 
frustrated with this new proposition that every budget priority should 
take a back seat to tax cuts. What is more important, funding for 
homeland security or tax cuts? Fiscal responsibility or tax cuts? 
Protecting Social Security or tax cuts? Prescription drugs for our 
seniors or tax cuts? Adequate funding for veterans' health and 
disability benefits or tax cuts? Keeping children nutrition programs or 
tax cuts? Adequate funding for education or tax cuts?
  At a time that we are facing large deficits, it seems to me that we 
could find a lot better use for $1.3 trillion for tax cuts that 
primarily benefit the wealthy.
  This plan digs a deeper hole in our Federal budget. We should treat 
the Federal budget with no less consideration than we would treat our 
own family home budget. This budget digs a deep hole in our Federal 
budget. It cuts vital programs that help the people in our society we 
have pledged to assist, our veterans, our children, our parents. It 
puts more pressure on our States and cities who are already under the 
fiscal gun, and it shows exactly the wrong kind of budget priorities.
  Our budget should speak to our priorities. We must do better. We 
should approve the budget resolution offered by the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) that is more fiscally responsible, provides 
for a modest tax cut targeted to stimulate immediate growth in our 
economy, and provides adequate resources for prescription drugs for our 
seniors, education for our children, and homeland defense for all 
Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment and the 
underlying budget resolution and support the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lend my strong support to 
the Republican Study Committee budget. As chairman of the RSC, I am 
very proud of this budget that we have produced, and I want to thank 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for all his hard work on 
this. It reins in the astronomical spending increases we have had over 
the past few years and brings us back to balance in just 4 years. No 
other budget achieves balance as quickly as this one does.
  When I came to Washington as part of the revolutionary class of 1995, 
we were determined and extremely serious to balance the budget and get 
us back on track, which we did. We were successful in doing that for 
the first few years, but lately we have presided over some of the 
biggest increases in spending in U.S. history. In the last 7 years, 
nondefense discretionary spending has grown 66 percent. The fiscal year 
2003 budget alone was a 9 percent increase in discretionary spending 
from the year before. I do not know of any family's budget in this 
country that has had the good fortune to increase 9 percent in 2003. So 
why should the Federal Government continue spending increases in this 
amount?
  This RSC budget holds the government to responsible increases that 
will not grow faster than inflation or the family budget. Our budget 
proposal achieves a 1 percent savings by looking for waste, fraud and 
abuse and eliminating it from the Federal Government. That is only 1 
penny out of every dollar. We hear folks continue to say it is 
impossible to find that amount of money, that amount of waste, in the 
government.
  I would like Members to take a look at this chart. Thirty-five food 
safety laws administered by 12 different agencies; 541 clean air, 
water, waste programs; 50 programs for the homeless in 8 different 
Federal agencies; 163 different job training employment programs; 64 
welfare programs; 500 urban aid. It goes on. You can see for yourself 
there is a lot there that could be simplified. Most estimates indicate 
there are tens of billions of dollars wasted every year. Last year 
alone, there were estimated to be $13.3 billion in improper payments 
under Medicare.
  It is time Congress gets serious about reining in wasteful spending 
and getting our budget under control. That is what we were sent here to 
do. That is what the American people expect us to do. They want us to 
stop the business as usual and stop the excuses.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hastert was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                      Notice of Iraq War Briefings

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, for the information of all Members, I want 
to report that there will be two classified Members-only briefings 
regarding Iraq tonight and tomorrow. First, tonight, at 7:40 p.m., 
Secretary Rumsfeld will brief all Members in the Armed Services 
Committee hearing room located in 2118 of the Rayburn Office Building.
  In addition, tomorrow, Friday, at 10:45 a.m., officials from the 
Department of Defense, the Department of State and the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff will provide this briefing also. This briefing will take place at 
the 2118 Rayburn location as well.
  I encourage all Members to attend both these important briefings, 
tonight and tomorrow, so that they have the latest information prior to 
returning to their districts.
  Members will be alerted to any further details via the e-mail whip 
notice system.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his hard work on 
the budget.
  As the gentleman knows, the manager's amendment on the budget 
resolution includes reconciliation instructions to the Committee on 
Agriculture for savings in mandatory programs. To clarify for my 
colleagues and farmers and ranchers who follow this process, I would 
like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
about the reconciliation instructions.
  Mr. NUSSLE. If the gentleman will yield, I would be happy to respond.
  Mr. OSBORNE. It is my understanding that the Committee on the Budget 
will work with the Committee on Agriculture to identify specific 
proposals that eliminate waste, fraud and inefficiencies so that any 
reductions do not come from farm programs and the crop insurance 
program. Is that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget's 
understanding?
  Mr. NUSSLE. That is my understanding. The budget is intended to 
protect farm programs and the crop insurance program. Our committee 
will work with the chairman and other members of the Committee on 
Agriculture such as yourself to ensure that we protect critical farm 
programs and the crop insurance program. This includes an adequate 
funding level for programs authorized under last year's farm bill.
  Mr. OSBORNE. I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget for 
his responses to my inquiries. As I understand what the chairman is 
saying, the Committee on Agriculture should look to eliminating waste, 
fraud and abuse, and that he will work to see that there are no 
reductions in the current farm program and crop insurance program other 
than those attributable to waste, fraud and abuse.
  Mr. NUSSLE. The gentleman is correct. I appreciate his help and 
support in this endeavor.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 6928]]

  I would simply say that these colloquies we are hearing on the House 
floor indicate how difficult it is going to be to achieve the kind of 
reconciliation cuts that have been directed to various committees. We 
see the committee people coming out here and saying, You are not going 
to cut this, are you? You are not going to cut that, are you? You are 
not going to cut government pensions, for goodness sakes. We will 
correct the procurement system and save $43 billion.
  That is why I find it hard to take this budget at face value. I am 
sorry, but that is way I approach it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina for his leadership on this budget. I rise in opposition 
to the Toomey amendment. But before I do that, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to first offer my prayers and support for all of our brave 
soldiers currently serving in Iraq and the surrounding regions.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Chairman, the Toomey amendment would provide less discretionary 
spending than the Republican budget resolution, which means that his 
amendment would keep this Nation in deficit spending far past 2007. 
With respect to the underlying bill, our Nation is fighting an 
expensive war, the costs of which are yet unknown. Thus it is 
unconscionable that this body would take up a budget resolution that 
would propose cuts in key domestic programs.
  According to the National Urban League, this budget resolution 
clearly shows how policy can affect the gap in black and white wealth 
accumulation. First, the biggest tax expenditure in the Federal 
Government is the deduction of health insurance. African Americans do 
not get access to this credit, as one third of African Americans get 
health insurance through Medicare. Thus this budget resolution on the 
House floor proposes to cut $300 billion out of minority communities 
through Medicare cuts. Over the next 10 years, this budget resolution 
would cut also as much as $470 billion in programs such as Medicare, 
Medicaid, education, and veterans benefits. In fact, the Republican 
Party's budget resolution drastically cuts domestic programs by $244 
billion below the amount needed to maintain the FY 2003 funding levels.
  I believe we owe the American people that we must take care of their 
affordable health care needs, and I believe the Democratic substitute 
amendment and budget offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) does exactly that. My constituents want their benefits under 
Medicare and Medicaid protected. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this budget 
resolution offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
would increase the resources for homeland security and first 
responders.
  I say vote for the Spratt amendment and vote ``no'' on the Republican 
budget.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond and 
correct what I think was a misstatement.
  The fact is the cuts in spending in our Republican Study Committee 
budget did not result in larger deficits. They result in smaller 
deficits because we have got less spending, and that means less debt, 
and that means we get back into balance faster than any other budget 
that will be considered today; and I am looking forward to the 
enthusiastic support of the Blue Dogs, who feel very strongly about 
getting back into balance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  And I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania on this for his work on 
this alternative budget, and I offer it my full support. It is said 
that we simply cannot cut anymore and that the Nussle budget that we 
have, a lot of people are saying it cuts too deeply. This is simply 
wrong. When we look across the board and we look at what we have done 
as Republicans, frankly, over the past 8 years, since 1996, the first 
year of the first Republican budget, we have increased spending for all 
cabinet agencies substantially, much more so than inflation. Inflation 
has been about 21 percent since 1996. The Agriculture Department has 
gone up 27.5 percent; Commerce, 40.2 percent; Energy, 34.4; HHS, 94.7; 
HUD, 52.6; Interior, 45 percent since 1996. The State Department has 
gone up 68 percent; Labor Department, 23.8; Defense Department, 43.7. 
And how about education? It is always said we do not spend enough on 
education. Try a 131.9 percent increase since 1996.
  And we say we cannot cut anything. We say we cannot find waste, 
fraud, and abuse, 1 percent of it. Come on. Let us get serious. We just 
passed an omnibus bill a couple of weeks ago that had items like $3.1 
million for the Inventors Hall of Fame that I did not even know we had, 
or how about $750,000 for the Baseball Hall of Fame? The Rock and Roll 
Hall of Fame got $350,000. What are we doing? $800,000 to the Grammy 
Foundation. That now is part of the baseline. We are adding to that and 
we keep adding and adding and adding and adding. Where does it end? We 
have got to get some fiscal sanity, and that is what the Toomey budget 
does. This brings our budget back into balance faster than any other 
budget plan outlined, in 4 years.
  We know that there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse out there. 
More than $8 billion has gone out in erroneous earned income tax credit 
payments. There is mismanagement of over $3 billion in the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs trust funds, over $2 billion in erroneous food stamp 
payments. Two years ago there was over $1 billion in unissued medical 
bills for Veterans Health Administration. The list goes on and on and 
on. We can cut more. We can actually give tax cuts and cut spending and 
come into balance much faster than the budget outlined by the Democrats 
and the Republicans in the majority. I urge support of the Toomey 
amendment, the Toomey plan.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before yielding to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), 
let me quote from a letter that was written to Speaker Hastert by the 
head of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. He said, ``We do not 
consider payments toward disabled veterans, pensions for the poorest 
disabled veterans, and GI benefits for soldiers returning from 
Afghanistan to be waste, fraud, and abuse.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment and to the underlying 
Republican budget resolution and in support of the Spratt substitute 
that will be up shortly. The Federal budget is a statement of our 
Nation's priorities. It is where we put our national resources to meet 
our Nation's most important needs. Unfortunately, this budget has 
fundamental flaws and has misplaced priorities that I think shortchange 
the American people. Instead of investing in a strong, more prosperous 
America for years to come, the Republican budget neglects our economy, 
explodes the national debt, undermines key investments in homeland 
security, education, health care, and continues to spend Social 
Security trust funds. All of these priorities are sacrificed for 
another large tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. I guess it means we 
take from the many to give to the few.
  I am most disappointed in the Republicans cuts in education, however. 
Prior to my service in this body, I served as the superintendent of 
schools for my home State of North Carolina, and I sought this office 
because the Republican majority under Newt Gingrich targeted public 
education in America, and I said I was coming to this House to fight to 
stop it. We have made a great deal of progress on changing the dialogue 
on this critical issue, but unfortunately the rhetoric is a lot more 
pro-education than the record.
  Last Congress the President of the United States signed into law the 
No Child Left Behind Act, which promised

[[Page 6929]]

to start new investments to improve schools in this country; but before 
teachers, students and parents get a chance to figure out the tough 
requirements that we passed, and, yes, I voted for that legislation, 
under this new law the administration has failed to fund its own 
program; and the fact is that this budget underfunds it with the 
consent of the administration, totality so far by about $20 billion to 
No Child Left Behind. I cannot and I will not agree to these outrageous 
cuts in education.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget's $400 million cut eliminates 
after-school initiatives in my home county for children, about 11,000 
of them. It cuts teacher quality programs for every State in this 
country. For the State of North Carolina, $1.7 million. For the great 
universities and colleges we have in this country that are training our 
future leaders, it will cut Pell grants in these programs to make a 
difference; Cutting the Perkins loans money that makes a difference, 
having children who transfer from community college to university. This 
budget cuts $765 million for COPS, et cetera, et cetera.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, probably the worst example of misplaced 
priorities in this budget is the shameful treatment of our children of 
our fighting men and women. As we all know, right now Americans, men 
and women, are now putting up a proud fight on the other side of the 
world, and yet in this budget we are cutting Impact Aid to schools in 
this very budget that they have proposed. That is wrong. The Observer 
in my home county said a 14.5 percent cut will eliminate $173 million 
that helps pay for books and classrooms for these children, and that is 
absolutely wrong. We can do better.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes for the purposes 
of entering into a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, and I yield to him for that purpose.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year of 2004. First, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for his willingness to work in 
partnership with me to ensure that this budget resolution lays the 
groundwork for a successful reauthorization of highway and transit 
programs. I am pleased that this resolution includes a contingency 
procedure for surface transportation, which will provide the 
flexibility we need to reauthorize our highway and transit programs. 
Under this contingency procedure, spending from the Highway Trust Fund 
for highway and transit programs will be increased above baseline 
levels to the extent that Highway Trust Fund receipts are increased. 
For every dollar increase in Highway Trust Fund receipts, a dollar 
increase in budget authority for highway and transit programs will be 
permitted. This contingency procedure is a necessary first step in our 
efforts to meet the infrastructure investment needs of our Nation's 
highways, bridges, and transit systems.
  I have three concerns with the resolution I hope can be worked out in 
conference. First, the baseline level assumed in the resolution for the 
trust fund share of transit programs is frozen at the fiscal year 2003-
enacted level. The reason that has been given for this assumption is 
uncertainty over the solvency of the transit account of the Highway 
Trust Fund. I want to assure the chairman that my committee intends to 
restructure transit programs such that the solvency of the transit 
account will be ensured. This restructuring, which is also proposed in 
the President's budget, will allow the transit account of the Highway 
Trust Fund to support increased spending levels.
  Second, I am concerned that the resolution allocates just $3.378 
billion each year for the airport improvement program. This is below 
the President's request and significantly below what will be needed to 
meet our airport capital needs when we reauthorize aviation programs 
later this year.
  Finally, I believe the reconciliation instructions for the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure are based on unrealistic 
assumptions. Most of the mandatory spending under my committee's 
jurisdiction results from Coast Guard and railroad industry retirement 
programs. I do not agree with the assumption in the resolution that 
these programs can be cut.
  I hope to continue working cooperatively with the chairman on these 
concerns as the resolution goes to conference with the Senate. I would 
like to ask the chairman of the Committee on the Budget if he will 
continue to work with me to address these concerns.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I thank the very 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure for his work in getting us to this point in time. 
Obviously there are a number of challenges. I will continue to work 
with him and members of his committee as we go to conference. We have a 
huge issue this year, as the gentleman knows. It is going to fall on 
his committee. We have challenges we need to meet in all of the 
transportation needs of our country. So, yes, I would be happy to work 
with the chairman as we move to conference on this issue, and I 
appreciate his support of our resolution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, again I thank the chairman for his 
work and working with me and trying to work through these important 
issues. I do believe we need a budget, and he has a tremendous task in 
front of him. He has done all he could for my area of transportation, 
and I urge support for this resolution.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
9 minutes be yielded to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) 
as long as he does not give me another zinger here.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen).

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Toomey plan, which I find even 
worse, if possible, than the majority Republican plan. I have been 
doing this now for 7 years, and every year the sense of unreality grows 
greater as I see charts and graphs on the other side that bear, in my 
opinion, very little relation to reality. The charts and graphs this 
year, the budgets proposed, both of the Republican budgets, seem to me 
totally unrealistic. The charts are misleading in an astonishing number 
of respects.
  We are dealing with what can only be called voodoo economics. But we 
have to ask ourselves, among all the numbers, what is really going on 
here? Well, if you set aside all the numbers, and you look at all the 
different changes that are being made, two things are going on.
  The Republican majority is determined, absolutely determined, to 
shift the burden of government from the Federal level to the State and 
local level. This is an effort to cut taxes at the Federal level and 
increase them at the State and local level. It is an effort to reduce 
the amount of money that the Federal Government provides States and 
municipalities for environmental issues, for health care, for 
education, in order to diminish the size of the Federal Government. 
That is it. That is what is going on. That is number one.
  Number two, the second effort that is being made by the majority here 
is to make sure that the burden of taxation in this country is reduced 
from those at the upper income levels, so that it burdens those at 
middle income levels more than it has in the past. The way of doing 
this, of course, is to give little, bitty tax cuts to people in the 
middle of the income scale, and to give massive tax cuts to people at 
the upper end of the income scale. The reason for

[[Page 6930]]

doing this, I would add, is the other side believes in a flat tax, but 
they do not want to argue a flat tax; they simply want to arrive there.
  Look at a couple of the charts. We have heard over and over again how 
much ordinary citizens will benefit from eliminating the tax on 
dividends. Look at the chart. Here is the tax benefit. This is designed 
to show how people at different income groups will benefit.
  Let us skip all of those who earn less than $100,000, because even if 
they are just below $100,000, households will only get about $300 a 
year. If you earn between $100,000 and $200,000, you get $885. If you 
earn between $100,000 and $200,000 a year, you get a total of $885. But 
if you move up the scale to where you are earning around $1 million, 
that is where the benefit comes. Then you get an average tax benefit, 
annually, of $45,000. That is why everything the other side says about 
averages makes no sense.
  Then they say we need to accelerate the tax cuts passed last year and 
make them permanent. The same deal. If you earn between, pick a 
different category, pick between $200,000 and $500,000 a year, you get 
$2,000 a year. Below that it is not much. But if your household takes 
in about $1 million a year, it is $63,000 a year.
  There is no moral justification for stripping this much money out of 
the Federal Government, cutting education, cutting veterans' benefits, 
in order to give tax cuts to the richest people in the country. It is 
an outrage.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
previous speaker, just to observe that under the budget that we are 
proposing, the Republican Study Committee, and under the President's 
tax plan, a family of four making $35,000 a year would pay nothing in 
federal income taxes. Zero. In fact, the top 50 percent of wage earners 
in America pay 96 percent of all Federal income taxes. When you lower 
taxes, it is just hard not to lower the taxes on the people who are 
actually paying the taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman 
challenged that statement, because we are hearing a lot of rhetoric 
here that does not track.
  I continually hear from my constituents that we need to rein in 
runaway Federal spending. Do you know what? They are right. More 
government spending does not necessarily make our economy better. When 
we are at war, and we are, this is the exact time when we should be 
reducing spending, cutting taxes and getting the economy back on track.
  When a family sits down to manage their monthly budget, they have to 
prioritize what is best for them at that time in their lives, and they 
usually make a list of needs and wants. A need is not the same thing as 
a want. For a family, a need is a roof over their head or food on the 
table. A want could be dinner out at a restaurant or a movie. So you 
fund first things first. Then whatever is left over at the end lets you 
fund the wants. You cannot just spend, spend, spend and hope you have 
enough to cover the tab.
  The same needs to be done with the Federal budget. During these 
difficult times, when we are at war, when we need to spur the economy, 
we must differentiate between the needs and wants. We cannot just 
spend, spend, spend.
  Our first need is to protect our country, so that means we fully fund 
defense. While this budget does not devote a full 4 percent of gross 
domestic product to the national security as I would prefer, it does 
meet the President's request for homeland security funding.
  I will tell you something: This Toomey budget funds defense higher 
than domestic spending for the first time in many years. I think, 
because of our situation, we need it. Our Constitution requires us to 
provide for a common defense. Let us not shirk that responsibility.
  Another priority is to help the economy rebound. It is a proven fact 
that when people can keep more of their own money, the economy grows. 
That is why we lower taxes. When entrepreneurs have more money, they 
can use that capital to hire more employees, buy more equipment or 
expand their business.
  This economy could use a turnaround, and letting people keep more of 
their own money will help our economy grow.
  Frankly, I am a bit disappointed in the Republican Study Committee 
budget because it does not do more to rein in Federal spending. 
However, I think most would agree, this is a good compromise for this 
time.
  Look, this budget makes tough choices; but that is why we are 
elected, to make tough choices. The good people of my district sent me 
here because they wanted a smarter, more efficient government, and the 
Republican Study Committee budget is a step in the right direction; 
increasing defense, lowering taxes and reining in runaway government 
spending. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget that we have put forth by the Republican 
majority is almost an unbelievable exercise in fiscal irresponsibility. 
On the very first day of the war that we are now fighting, the majority 
party introduced a budget resolution that does not provide 1 cent, not 
1 cent, to prosecute this war. This budget resolution contains more 
than $1 trillion in tax cuts that would benefit very few Americans, 
while endangering Social Security and Medicare.
  I offered an amendment to the budget resolution to express the sense 
of the Congress that no new tax cuts should be passed until the Health, 
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds are secured, but I was, of 
course, denied the opportunity to offer the amendment here tonight.
  When we take a look at what is before us, when so many things are 
uncertain, I believe we need to pause before we pass into law huge, 
permanent tax cuts paid for by shortchanging essential programs, such 
as Medicare, education, veterans and funding for first responders. 
Right now we do not even know how long the war may last or what it 
might cost. It is irresponsible to pass a budget without taking all 
information into account.
  If you take a look just the part on the veterans, the majority party 
cuts $14.2 billion over the next 10 years in benefits such as 
compensation for service-connected disabilities, burial benefits and GI 
education benefits. They are cut in this. What kind of message does 
that send to our troops fighting overseas? The fighting troops today 
are the veterans of tomorrow.
  The Republican plan also fails to provide necessary homeland defense 
for State and local communities. It is just as important to provide 
homeland defense resources, training and staff for our local 
firefighters, EMTs, police officers and medical workers as it is to 
equip our troops overseas.
  The Democratic substitute we will have a chance to vote on later 
tonight will provide $34 billion in extra money, new money, over the 
next 10 years for homeland security. In fact, $10 billion of this money 
would go to our States and local communities, right now this year.
  I would urge a no vote on the budget resolution of the Republican 
Party as it is fiscally irresponsible. Vote no on the Toomey 
substitute, and support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from New 
Jersey, I yield myself such time as I may consume to observe that 
although our budget grows spending every year, total spending grows, it 
grows at a slower rate than the alternative budgets, and that is why we 
are able to get back to balance faster than any other budgets, and why 
I look forward to the Blue Dog support, and that is why the Americans 
for Tax Reform and Citizens Against Government Waste have endorsed the 
Republican Study Committee budget.

[[Page 6931]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the proposed amendment offered by my friend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  As elected officials, we are sent here and are supposed to be 
responsible to the people that send us to office, but government 
spending has ballooned out of control, and it is the people back home 
in our districts who are the ones forced to foot the bill.
  Over the last 7 years, discretionary spending has grown at an average 
rate of 3.5 times the rate of inflation. I do not know anyone back in 
my district who has seen their family budget go up at such rates time 
and time again. Spending is growing at a rate faster than the family 
budgets. It must stop.
  Right now people back in our districts are turning on their TVs, they 
are seeing our men and women, our sons and daughters, our friends and 
neighbors in harm's way. We are engaged in a war on terrorism. We are 
still experiencing the aftermath of 9/11 as it affects our economy.
  So we are asking our families to tighten their belts because of that. 
We are asking county governments, State governments to do more with 
less. Is it not the responsibility of us here in Washington to lead 
then by example, to do the same thing, maybe to even take one step 
further?
  We can give a lot of examples, and you have heard some already, about 
the waste in government: Over $8 billion in erroneous earned income tax 
payments; I think someone else mentioned around $13.3 billion on 
Medicare; around $1 billion under the veterans' programs.
  Let me say, cutting wasteful spending is not enough. We in Congress 
must take the next step and actually begin to make the tough decisions 
we were sent here for in the first place.
  Every single program that we vote on has someone behind it that 
supports it and likes that program. But we are elected to Congress to 
make those tough choices, to do what is the first priority of us in 
Congress, to make sure that our folks back at home are safe, that this 
is a secure Nation, and that our men and women and troops overseas have 
the supplies, equipment and training necessary to get the job done.
  We cannot do less than sending them a responsible budget. Our 
children, our neighbors and our troops, they are dependent on us.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the administration's budget cuts highway 
construction by $2.5 billion below this year's budget and slashes 
funding necessary to keep Amtrak running. The official House Republican 
budget cuts the discretionary transportation programs by 22 percent 
below the 2003 budget enacted just a month ago. The proposal before us 
is even worse.
  The administration claims to be committed to economic growth and 
jobs, but this administration has the worst job growth record since 
Herbert Hoover. In fact, the administration's record is job loss, not 
growth; nearly 2 million non-farm payroll jobs lost in 2 years. On 
average, that is 73,000 jobs lost for every one of the 26 months of 
this administration. Yet cuts in transportation spending loses even 
more jobs tacked onto that miserable Republican economic record.
  The Republican Party is only concerned about tax cuts for the already 
wealthy. When the economy is doing well, cut taxes for the already 
wealthy. When the economy is in recession, cut taxes for the already 
wealthy. When we are at peace, cut taxes for the already wealthy. Now 
while we are at war, cut taxes for the already wealthy.
  Their highest priority is tax cuts for the already wealthy. They are 
not paying for their war, not reducing their deficits and debt, not 
keeping their promises to leave no child behind, not providing health 
care for veterans and the elderly.
  Mr. Chairman, the already wealthy do not need more tax cuts. Vote no 
on this Republican budget and support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the balanced 
budget alternative offered by my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

                              {time}  1930

  The Toomey budget offers several key priorities for the Nation at 
this time of war and economic uncertainty.
  The people of Colorado sent me here to rein in out-of-control 
government spending, to cut taxes, and to get government off their 
backs. Instead of spending the people's money like there is no 
tomorrow, we ought to provide real leadership and real solutions to 
demonstrate responsible fiscal discipline.
  Mr. Chairman, just as it is our duty to protect American families 
from cowardly acts of terrorism, it is also our duty to protect the 
well-being of American families by balancing the budget to grow the 
American economy. It is our duty to protect the people's wallets by 
allowing taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I do not 
want to mortgage the future of working families because we cannot say 
no to a government that is far too big and spends far too much. The 
American people will be proud of the Toomey budget because it keeps 
President Bush's tax cuts intact, while balancing the budget in a 
realistic 4-year time frame.
  I ask my fellow Members of Congress to stand up and to do the right 
thing for America. Let us not shirk our responsibilities to future 
generations. Please join me in supporting the Toomey budget amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, both Republican budget resolutions, the 
leadership resolution and the Toomey alternative, give us high 
deficits, high interest rates, and increased trade deficits. They take 
capital out of the capital markets and make it unavailable for private 
business investment, thus resulting in slower economic growth.
  Now, to sell anything that bad, one needs a commercial. This morning 
I brought such a commercial to the floor, but marketing experts tell us 
a commercial requires repetition. So here, once again, is a commercial 
on behalf of both Republican budget resolutions:
  Allowing corporations to skip out on their American taxes just by 
renting a hotel room in the Bahamas: $4 billion. Ending taxes on 
dividends: $385 billion. Ending the estate tax, even for the largest 
estates: $662 billion. Knowing you can pass the entire cost to future 
generations: Priceless.
  RepubliCard: It is everything the super-wealthy want it to be.
  Also available, the Deficit Express Card, now with a $4.2 trillion 
credit limit. The Deficit Express Card: Don't leave the House without 
it.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the 
creative and very amusing account from my good friend who just spoke 
about this. However, I would remind him that if he is very concerned 
about the size of the deficit and the magnitude of the debt, then he 
will vote for the RSC budget, the Toomey budget, because that is the 
one that gets us back to balance quickest; that is the one with the 
smallest deficits and the least debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we are at war, and I think most 
taxpayers understand you spend what it takes to win a war. We are in a 
recession as well, and taxpayers understand you spend what it takes to 
keep people in their jobs and to create new jobs for those who have 
lost them. But what taxpayers do not understand and will not accept is 
when we use it either to go on a spending spree that keeps us from 
balancing the budget, or keeps us from paying down our debt, or keeps 
us sending pork home to America and taking it out of their tax dollars.
  This budget supports a strong national defense, promotes new jobs in 
a

[[Page 6932]]

stronger economy, but it holds the line on spending. It says, let us 
tighten our belts in Washington; let us start to balance the budgets 
sooner than other budgets, and let us get people back to work.
  This budget also includes a Federal sunset act, an encouragement for 
Congress to pass a bill to balance obsolete agencies, to eliminate 
duplication among our agencies, and to begin asking agencies to put up 
or shut up; to produce, to succeed, to support our taxpayers. What we 
are trying to do is conserve our dollars, identify wasteful spending 
within our agencies and within our programs so that we have enough 
dollars for a secure America, for health care, for education, and to 
send dollars back home.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this budget. It makes a lot of sense, and 
perhaps because it makes sense is why it is getting so much resistance 
here in Washington.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield myself the remaining time.
  I would just say in conclusion that if the Members of this House want 
to vote for a budget that gets us back in balance without balancing the 
budget on the backs of our children, our elderly, or our most worthy 
citizens, and our sick and disabled veterans; if they want to get back 
into balance by the year 2010, we present a budget, our own 
alternative, which takes us there steadily every year with a lower and 
lower deficit and accumulates $931 billion less in new public debt than 
the Republican budget.
  So I would say that those who are conservative, those who want to 
vote for a fiscally responsible and conservative fiscal policy will 
have that opportunity, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for the 
House democratic alternative as something that achieves my colleagues' 
objectives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman from North Carolina by observing that the Democrat substitute 
has more spending, has higher taxes, and it has larger deficits for 
longer than the substitute that we are debating at this point.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, he is 
incorrect on all accounts, including the assignment to me to North 
Carolina. I am from South Carolina.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the gentleman from South 
Carolina. That was the one mistake I just made.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the alternative 
budget resolution proposed by the Republican Study Committee.
  I think sometimes we get into the details of these budgets and take a 
look at it just on a year-to-year basis, but I think it might be 
helpful for us to step back just a little bit, to step back to a time 
when I was only 2 years old. What was the tax burden on the average 
family in the year 1950? In 1950, you have a mom and a dad and 2 kids, 
and dad would go out and earn a dollar bill. Out of that dollar bill, 3 
pennies of it would go for direct State, Federal, and local taxes.
  Now, about 4 years ago, what happened? Mom and dad and 2 kids. Dad 
goes out to earn a dollar. Now we go from 3 cents to 38 cents tax on 
that average American family. That average American family is paying 
more in taxes than they are for what they pay for food and clothing and 
shelter combined.
  In one generation we have come a long way in the growth of big 
government, and at a time when State and local governments and families 
all across the country are tightening their belts, it is time for the 
Federal Government to do the same thing.
  The Republican Study Committee budget freezes total discretionary 
spending for 1 year. That is not too unreasonable considering it grew 9 
percent this last year.
  One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, my constituents sent me here was to 
take a look at the idea of reducing not only the size, but the scope of 
Federal Government, and that is the debate we should be having. It is 
important to get rid of wasteful spending, but it is even more 
important that we take a look at actually reducing the scope of some of 
the things that we are trying to do.
  When we are talking more tax on a family than 38 percent, more than 
they pay for food, clothing, and shelter, we are not talking about a 
safety net anymore, we are talking about excessive government.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in support of the Toomey amendment to the budget resolution. I 
congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), on 
presenting a wonderful budget to this Congress. But indeed, there is 
even a better budget, and that is one that presents less government and 
more freedom.
  Now, many people criticize this budget. They said there is not enough 
government spending involved in this budget. But, Mr. Chairman, over 
the last 5 years, we have increased VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
35.7 percent; Commerce and Justice 32.3 percent; Transportation, 79.7 
percent; Education, 132 percent, and the list goes on.
  How much government is enough? Does anything good happen in America 
that does not result from a government program? And if not, perhaps we 
should just double these budgets every year, or perhaps even triple 
them.
  But let me tell my colleagues, since I have been on the face of the 
planet, the Federal budget has grown seven times faster than the family 
budget. If the family budget grew as fast as the government budget, 
right now that family budget would be at $79,059, instead of $51,407.
  Mr. Chairman, if all of these government programs did us so much 
good, then perhaps we ought to look at increasing the funding for each 
and every one. But instead we know that HUD has spent $2.6 billion in 
Section 8 overpayments out of $31 billion. The National Park Service 
spends $800,000 for an outhouse, and it does not even work. And the 
list goes on and on and on.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, particularly at a time of war, and when 
families, hard-working American families, are having to make tough 
economic decisions around their kitchen table, should they not at least 
expect their Congress to make smart decisions? I do not think anything 
less should be expected out of this body. We can indeed save money 
without cutting needed programs and without raising taxes on the 
American people.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of the Nussle budget, but in stronger support of 
the RSC Toomey budget. Let me make it clear why.
  This Congress, year in and year out, faces the challenge of setting a 
budget for our Nation, but it seems to me this year we are divorced 
from reality. The reality of this Nation is that in the last 7 years, 
nondefense discretionary spending has grown by a staggering 66 percent. 
Over the past 7 years, discretionary spending has grown at three and a 
half times the rate of inflation. In fiscal year 2003 alone, we 
increase spending by 9 percent over the previous year in 1 year only.
  Enough is enough. The reality is that across America, local 
governments, State governments, city governments, county governments 
are making real dollar cuts in their spending.
  Now, to its credit, the Nussle budget says, we ought to scale back. 
It walls off certain areas, but it says we ought to at least have a 1 
percent cut in some areas where we can achieve that. But the rest of 
the budget spends too much money.
  Let us look at what we have been doing in spending. Since 1996, 
agricultural spending is up 27.5 percent; Commerce Department, 40.2; 
Energy, 34.4; HHS, a staggering 94 percent; and Education, 131.9 
percent. I could go on and on.

[[Page 6933]]

  Mr. Chairman, I was here in 1995 when we enacted real spending 
restraint in this Congress. We did not actually stop the growth of 
spending, but we sure slowed it down. What is lacking now is 
discipline.
  I was a participant in those hearings when we went across America and 
we asked the American people, can you do with less government? And they 
looked us in the eye and they said, yes. They said, so long as the 
restraint in spending, the cuts which we are asking them to make, were 
evenly distributed across our society so that all programs took some 
hits, they were willing to do it.
  We face a slowed economy, and we face a war. It is time for the 
Congress to exercise discipline. It is time for the Congress to lead. 
The Toomey budget does that. It says that these are not normal times. 
It says that we can, in fact, do with a little less.
  I want to draw a parallel to American businesses. Every one of us 
here knows businesses back home, every one of us knows the key to 
business. What is the key to business in America? It is year after year 
doing more with less. What has made America's economy boom in the last 
few years leading up to the recent situation? I will tell my colleagues 
what made it boom. It was improvements in efficiency. It is doing more 
with less.

                              {time}  1945

  Yet that is a concept that we do not even think about in government. 
Is it impossible for us to do more with less in the government? I 
suggest it is not, and I strongly support the budget of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just make the following observation, Mr. Chairman. Most of us 
on both sides of the aisle talk a pretty good game about fiscal 
discipline. Here is the opportunity to walk the walk.
  This substitute budget slows down the growth rate of government 
spending. It has more in tax cuts to get this economy growing again. It 
reaches a balance faster than any other budget that is considered today 
on the floor. It does so within 4 years. It is endorsed by Americans 
for Tax Reform and Citizens Against Government Waste.
  For any of our colleagues who are serious about getting our deficit 
under control, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this substitute.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Republican Study Committee Budget Substitute. Former President Reagan 
said it best when he said, ``government does nothing as well or as 
economically as the private sector.'' These are trying times and our 
Nation faces serious challenges in the coming months. With that in 
mind, it is irresponsible to fund projects that deter or deviate from 
the original intent of government. Instead, we must plan ahead and put 
forth our best effort to return to a balanced budget.
  The RSC Budget includes all of President Bush's economic growth 
package, tax fairness proposals and balances the budget in 4 years. 
Four years. With the decreases in capital gains taxes, we will create 
over 1 million new jobs. There is no better time to return hard-earned 
money back to the American people. And I have no doubt that any effort 
to remain fiscally responsible will help boost economic growth.
  In 1950, we were paying 2 percent of our money to the government. 
Today, that figure has skyrocketed to 30 percent. A 28 percent 
increase. In 2001, the Federal Government made $20 billion in 
overpayments. Not to mention that it cannot account for another $17.3 
billion. Should not the American people be permitted to spend their 
money as they choose? How can we expect the people of this country to 
tighten their belt, when we cannot impose strict fiscal discipline on 
ourselves?
  The RSC Budget includes a reserve fund for Social Security reform. 
Under the current system, nearly $6 trillion would be needed just to 
repay the trust fund. According to the Social Security Administration, 
it will take only about $7 trillion to fix the system permanently. Our 
baby boomers deserve a secure retirement. They paid for it.
  This budget retains the President's defense spending numbers and the 
President's funding levels for homeland security--crucial now, when our 
courageous military heroes are depending on our support.
  It is time to return to an era of economic prosperity. Time to put an 
end to reckless Federal spending. Men and women in our military are 
sacrificing their lives for our country. We have the power to do the 
same in Congress by making our own sacrifices to cut back on wasteful 
spending and balance the budget. There is no more appropriate time to 
do so than now. Having said that, I commend Mr. Toomey for introducing 
the best budget that he possibly could at this historic time in our 
Nation's history.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, and in support of the CBC and Democratic Alternative 
budgets.
  I didn't think a budget resolution could be much worse than the one 
produced by the Majority, but then I see the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania. This amendment calls for more tax cuts and 
more cuts in nondefense and non-homeland security spending.
  Like the parent resolution offered by the Majority leadership, the 
budget cuts called for in the gentleman's alternative are just 
unrealistic. In fact, the $1.6 trillion tax cut proposed by the 
gentleman's alternative, requires that domestic spending be cut by an 
additional $8 billion.
  The budgets proposed by Republican Study Conference and the Majority 
leadership will force authorizing committees to reduce eligibility 
requirements and benefits for people programs that service our 
children, veterans, farmers, federal workers and more.
  Like the parent resolution, the RSC amendment provides more tax cuts 
for the wealthy that are bound to continue to take our economy down the 
glide path of additional deficits. What I don't understand is why our 
distinguished majority rightly calls on all Americans to support the 
war effort in Iraq, but is not willing to pay for its costs. That is a 
major disconnect.
  The Democratic and CBC alternative budgets offer targeted tax cuts 
that are designed to stimulate the economy and produce real jobs. Up to 
a million jobs will be produced by the Democratic Alternative in 2003. 
The Majority's plan, on the other hand, creates only 190,000 jobs in 
2003.
  The CBC and Democratic Alternative budgets provide more money for 
Medicare prescription drugs. The Democratic Alternative sets aside $528 
billion in new money for a prescription drug program. We deliver and 
the President's party doesn't.
  The Democratic Alternative and Black Caucus budgets invest in 
education and training. These increases will enable Congress to 
increase funding for the ``No Child Left Behind Act.''
  The Democratic and CBC Alternatives protect our men and women in war; 
they advance the security needs of our homeland; they increase our 
investment in human capital and the nation's infrastructure. And they 
do so in a fiscally responsible way.
  Soon we will be asked to redevelop and rebuild Iraq. We will be asked 
to pass appropriations that will develop and modernize that country's 
health care delivery system, repair and build 3,000 miles of major 
thoroughfares; upgrade the country's maritime ports, build classrooms 
and provide student supplies; provide 20,000 units of housing; rebuild 
the country's financial system; establish a potable water delivery 
system; and more.
  It is ironic that this administration and the majority party in this 
Chamber will be asking us to spend billions to invest in redeveloping 
the infrastructure in Iraq while it simultaneously cuts back our 
investment in American cities, states and individual human capital. The 
Members on the other side of the aisle may be able to explain that to 
their constituents, but I know I won't be able to explain it to mine.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment and 
support the CBC and Democratic Alternatives budget resolutions.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 79]

                                AYES--80

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn

[[Page 6934]]


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

                               NOES--342

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

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

                              {time}  2015

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


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

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

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

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

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

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

[[Page 6935]]

       Fiscal year 2005: -$317,500,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$269,100,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$239,800,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$223,700,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,197,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,327,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,511,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,707,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,863,500,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $4,013,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $4,013,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $4,013,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2004 through 2013 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $392,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $396,195,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $395,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $406,277,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $396,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $416,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $399,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $427,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,028,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $441,936,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $429,648,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $453,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $444,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $464,893,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $476,777,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $465,494,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $488,991,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $482,639,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,681,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,946,950,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,605,889,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,081,480,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,277,406,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,803,109,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,962,954,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,539,171,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,662,213,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,289,854,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,524,057,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,055,651,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,274,538,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,836,764,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,040,029,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,606,499,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,794,370,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,418,638,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,590,256,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,189,500,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,970,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,721,500,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,780,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,058,500,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,780,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,460,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,987,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,118,500,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,962,575,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,273,600,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,109,920,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,181,200,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,022,140,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,984,300,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,835,085,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,583,800,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,404,610,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,600,300,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,420,285,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,722,400,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,536,280,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,836,800,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,644,960,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,963,300,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,765,135,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,096,400,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,891,580,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,440,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,448,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,541,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,790,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,668,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,022,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,202,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,616,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,204,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,028,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,448,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,313,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,214,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,634,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,678,650,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,514,500,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,821,300,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,664,900,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,977,700,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,818,100,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,137,300,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,974,600,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,139,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,466,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,296,700,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,635,300,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,462,600,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:

[[Page 6936]]

       (A) New budget authority, $8,808,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,631,800,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,984,200,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,804,500,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,163,900,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,480,600,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,363,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,202,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,815,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,393,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,057,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,950,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,746,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,307,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,503,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,340,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,208,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,544,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,112,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,431,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,723,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,717,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,317,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,011,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,935,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,254,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,929,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,911,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,249,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,242,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $117,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $129,470,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $126,881,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $142,417,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $139,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,325,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $185,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,389,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $204,222,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $229,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $224,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,149,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $247,107,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $242,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $238,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $247,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $242,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,770,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,825,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,669,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $262,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,722,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $268,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $262,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $273,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,132,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $279,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,657,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,964,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $290,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $284,543,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $250,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,955,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $265,608,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $260,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $292,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $292,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $313,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $313,160,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $336,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $336,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $351,278,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $351,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $377,120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $403,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $403,968,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $403,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $403,507,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $460,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,889,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $359,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $374,391,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $366,903,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $381,879,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $374,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $389,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $381,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $397,307,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,361,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $405,253,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $397,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $413,358,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $405,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $421,625,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $413,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $430,058,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $421,457,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $438,659,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $429,886,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $501,146,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $498,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $521,499,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,672,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $546,735,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,640,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $575,008,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $571,621,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $606,071,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $602,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $641,105,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $636,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $679,322,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $674,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $720,505,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $715,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $766,154,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $760,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $816,195,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $810,363,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,916,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,618,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,526,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,869,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,492,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,935,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,516,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,063,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,241,000,000.

[[Page 6937]]

       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,234,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,007,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,971,260,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,957,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,137,860,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,387,760,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,552,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,720,960,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,137,460,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,500,420,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,871,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,913,500,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,379,660,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,894,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,876,120,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,427,460,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,766,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,552,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,168,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,572,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,294,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,039,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,829,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,323,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $255,938,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $255,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $307,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $307,866,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $345,708,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $345,708,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $372,992,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $372,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,172,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $425,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $425,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $452,793,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $452,793,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $478,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $478,544,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $504,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $504,010,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $529,542,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $529,542,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens) who was the architect of the Congressional Black 
Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus resolution.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first congratulate the 
leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus for the agreement to produce this joint budget.
  Our troops are in the field now, and we are going to support those 
troops. The best way we can support our troops is to try to bring them 
home by policy changes, not in body bags, but bring them home smiling 
on their feet. We also would like to support their families. This is a 
budget which we call ``Leave No Families Behind.''
  Mr. Chairman, 35 percent of the members of the Army are African 
American. Two-thirds of the fighting force in Iraq, on the borders of 
Iraq, are members of working families. We want to take care of the 
families of the people who fight for America, and that is the gist of 
this budget. It is a budget for working families.
  We have stayed within the requirements of the majority. Our current 
budget is $1.836 trillion. We have begun by adopting the Rangel shared 
sacrifice freeze on tax cuts, and this generated a revenue base of $1.5 
trillion. This has allowed the Congressional Black Caucus and the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus to offer our current budget of $1.8 
trillion. Our budget projections reached a low deficit of $72.9 billion 
in the year 2011, and we offer a surplus of $87.7 billion in the years 
2012 and $127.7 billion in 2013.
  It is the strong and overriding belief of the Congressional Black 
Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus

[[Page 6938]]

that the budget and appropriations processes are the highest importance 
to our constituencies who make up the great majority of Americans. 
Budget priorities speak in a language of numbers and dollars that tell 
the people we represent how important their concerns and their welfare 
are to us. This budget was prepared against the backdrop of a recession 
at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is greater in the 
United States than in any other Nation.
  A recent report of the Federal Reserve states that the median net 
worth of white families went up 17 percent to $120,900, while the 
median net worth for minority families during the same 3-year period 
went down 4.5 percent to $17,000. The difference between $17,000 and 
$120,000 is a stark difference. Working families of all ethnic groups 
are included in this great gap between rich and poor, the white working 
families as well as minority working families.
  A key component of this budget is a stimulus package which addresses 
the needs of all working families with proposals for extended 
unemployment and health care benefits immediately, and also for 
creating jobs as rapidly as possible. This budget also continues to 
focus on certain unique needs of African American and minority 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank all Members and staff, especially Jacqueline 
Ellis of my staff, who worked so diligently on producing this 
alternative budget.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the CBC/
CPC substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute because our 
reading is it raises taxes and increases spending, does not provide 
enough for defense, and fails to reach balance sooner. Having said 
that, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) wanted me to say that he 
knows the amount of time and effort that was put into this budget and 
also knows that there are important issues that will be brought out in 
this debate that this Chamber needs to hear.
  So with that, I will just compliment my colleagues on working on this 
budget, say it is not a budget that we can support, but we look forward 
to listening to the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the chairman of the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to participate with the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the CBC in the drafting of 
this CBC/Progressive Caucus budget; and I am honored to be here with my 
co-chair, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and I thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for the fine work that he did in 
this regard.
  I rise in support of the CBC/Progressive Caucus budget. This is the 
only budget that funds universal single-payer health care. This is the 
only budget that fully stimulates the economy with a $300 billion 
economic stimulus package. This is the only budget that fully funds 
education. This is the only budget that fully funds transportation. 
This is the only budget that fully funds housing, and the only budget 
that fully funds veterans programs, and the only budget that fully 
funds the HIV-AIDS international support programs.
  The CBC/Progressive Caucus budget calls on Congress to implement H.R. 
676, Medicare For All. This legislation is a single-payer, universal 
health care plan which will guarantee access to health care, guarantee 
a universal high standard of care, and lower health care costs.
  Earlier this month, it was reported that 75 million Americans went 
without health insurance in 2001 or 2002. Our failing economy and 
rising health care costs are failing working families who make up the 
majority of the uninsured Americans. While costs continue to go up, we 
are not getting what we are paying for. Government expenditures account 
for 60 percent of total health care costs. Our government spends more 
money per person than countries that provide universal health care. Our 
citizens are so close to paying for a universal health care system, but 
so far from getting it.
  Medicare For All would first improve the Medicare program by adding 
coverage for all medically necessary health services, including 
prescription drugs. During a transition period, Medicare would subsume 
other health programs like Medicaid and, finally, all Americans in 
nongovernment programs.
  It has been estimated that Medicare For All could be paid for with 
the same amount of money that is currently in the system. Under 
Medicare For All, employers would maintain a contribution to employee 
health care in the form of a phased-in payroll tax. This payroll tax 
would be less than what employers now pay on the average. And unlike 
current skyrocketing health care costs, this contribution would remain 
stable. Medicare For All would help employers by eliminating the costs 
associated with providing private health care coverage, including 
annual negotiations, annual premium increases, and administrative 
tasks.
  Patients would benefit because copayments, premiums, deductibles and 
out-of-pocket payments would be eliminated for medically necessary 
services. Under this plan, patients would receive a card that would 
guarantee two things they do not now have: access to the health care 
they need and a universal, best standard of medical care. This would 
help to eliminate disparities in health care between whites and 
minorities.
  It is time for Congress to stop trimming around the edges of the 
health care system. Workers, retirees, and employers are suffering 
together from the burdens of illnesses and increasing costs. Congress 
must budget for a real solution, that is, Medicare For All that is in 
this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for this opportunity to 
participate.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Republican budget 
resolution and in support of the joint Congressional Black Caucus and 
Progressive Caucus budget alternative. This alternative budget, 
entitled the Leave No Family Behind Budget Act, focuses national 
attention on spending on priorities that benefit all Americans.
  It does this by funding key domestic priorities which address the 
needs of middle-income and working families, while fully supporting the 
national defense and protection of our homeland. These priorities 
include education, health care, housing, child care, transportation, 
worker safety and protection, and business development. It would 
immediately repeal tax cuts for the upper-income brackets and would 
implement tax cuts for all families earning less than $50,000 per year.
  The CBC and the Progressive Caucus budget proposal involves several 
balanced components. It provides Medicare For All, it provides a $300 
billion economic stimulus package which includes an extension of 
unemployment insurance, and implements state revenue sharing; and it 
yields a balanced budget by 2008, at least 4 years earlier than the 
Republican budget.
  This fiscally responsible budget freezes the 2001 tax cut in order to 
generate greater revenue.

                              {time}  2030

  As such, our budget provides $528 billion for a Medicare prescription 
drug benefit and restores the deep cuts in education by increasing 
funding by $20 billion over the Republican budget proposal. This means 
more funding for after-school programs, Head Start, Pell grants, child 
care programs, TRIO, Gear Up and the Leave No Child Behind Act. This 
means a prescription drug benefit that our seniors so desperately need.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget alternative is feasible, balanced and 
fiscally responsible. It will get our country on

[[Page 6939]]

the road to recovery while funding meaningful national priorities for 
our children, for our seniors, for our veterans and for our 
communities. It reflects the guiding principle that as a Nation we must 
come together and share the sacrifice that is required to strengthen 
our economy and put us on a better fiscal footing.
  Unfortunately, the Republican budget is devoid of any recognition of 
this required sacrifice, because it provides $1.4 trillion in tax cuts 
to the top 1 percent of American taxpayers. I say sacrifice this tax 
cut, restore funding for crucial domestic programs, and get our country 
back on the road to economic recovery. I have to admit that I am 
astonished that at a time when our economy is struggling, the 
Republicans continue to pursue tax breaks for the affluent at any cost. 
Their plan is both astounding and irresponsible. The Republican budget 
resolution would only prolong our country's economic downturn at a time 
when we need the greatest investment in our infrastructure and in our 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, in these difficult and troubling times, we have a 
tremendous responsibility as a Congress to protect and provide for the 
needs of all Americans. But I and many of my colleagues believe that 
the Republican budget plan callously throws that responsibility aside. 
The Republican-proposed $1.4 trillion tax cut is a reckless measure to 
pursue at this time, especially as we face war in Iraq and a continued 
war on terror to defend our homeland and our hometowns.
  The Republicans and the President claim that tax cuts will serve to 
stimulate our economy, but the evidence does not support this 
assertion. The trickle-down tax cuts of 20 years ago did not revitalize 
our economy, and similar tax cuts today will not fare better. In fact, 
the CBO estimates that the Republican budget will add $1.7 trillion in 
deficits over the next 10 years after completely depleting the surplus 
of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds.
  The Republican budget balances itself on the backs of Americans who 
can least afford it. It cuts Medicare by $214 billion over the next 10 
years, Medicaid by $95 billion, veterans programs by $15 billion, while 
giving a meager prescription drug benefit of $28 billion to our 
deserving seniors. These cuts are unthinkable, and I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to reject such recklessness.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus for his leadership; also my colleagues the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich); and also to my staff, Julie, and all of our staffs who 
really worked many long hours to craft this very fair and balanced 
budget.
  I rise in strong support of this budget, which really does provide a 
dramatic alternative to the Republican budget. As a member of the 
Congressional Black Caucus' executive committee, and also as cochair of 
the Progressive Caucus, I am doubly pleased to be a cosponsor of this 
joint alternative budget, which, in my opinion, represents the best 
alternative on the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, we are united today in our opposition to the 
irresponsible, unfair and warped priorities as expressed in the 
Republican budget. We cannot and we will not support a budget that 
spends more on defective technology than on school construction, safe 
drinking water, vocational education and the fight against HIV and AIDS 
combined. We cannot and will not support a budget that eliminates vital 
support for programs such as HOPE VI, the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination Program and brownfields redevelopment. We cannot and will 
not support a budget which slashes after-school programs, the school 
lunch program, veterans' benefits, housing programs, school loan 
programs, and ignores our Nation's vital need for a meaningful economic 
stimulus, including relief to the unemployed. Above all, we cannot and 
we will not support a budget that puts lavish and massive tax cuts for 
the wealthiest Americans above everything else, thereby mortgaging our 
children's future.
  What we can and what we will support, however, is this reasonable and 
fair alternative. Our budget provides a real, fast-acting economic 
stimulus which includes $180 billion for payroll tax relief, $50 
billion for Federal revenue-sharing with States, and $50 billion for 
infrastructure investment. Our budget provides health care for every 
single American, a benefit that no other budget offers.
  Our budget also goes well beyond the Republicans' rhetorical 
commitment to education by providing serious resources. It fully funds 
the Leave No Child Behind Act, invests in substantial school 
construction, our Nation's teachers, vocational education and student 
loan programs. It also provides critical resources to our Nation's 
community development and housing programs. It creates a national 
housing trust fund, restores the administration's cuts to eliminate the 
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, and it provides over $1 
billion for economic and community development.
  In addition to funding critical programs at home, our bill also 
commits substantial increases in funding toward fighting the HIV/AIDS 
pandemic abroad and commits $1.2 billion over the President's 
reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.
  How can our budget really afford to fund these priorities? It is 
really very simple. Instead of tax handouts to the wealthy, our budget 
freezes the tax cuts passed in 2001, closes corporate tax loopholes, 
and really does ignore President Bush's new tax cut proposals. In 
short, our budget has its priorities straight.
  I encourage our colleagues to join me in supporting our budget. Let 
us support our troops tonight, Mr. Chairman, by passing this budget 
that says in no uncertain terms that we intend to bring you home to a 
country that places your economic security as our highest priority. I 
thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for 
this alternative and for their hard work.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the GOP budget sends the message loud and 
clear: Weapons and tax cuts are more important than people. That is bad 
public policy. I know it, my constituents in Marin and Sonoma Counties 
in California know it, and most of the people in the United States 
agree. It is time to look at the entire picture and put together a 
budget that provides support to all American families, including the 
men and women in our military. That is why I rise today in support of 
the Progressive/Black Caucus budget. Our budget includes support that 
American families need and support that American families deserve.
  Our budget includes affordable health care, because by providing 
universal access for a high standard of health care, no parent will 
have to worry about taking their child to a doctor when that child is 
ill. Our budget recognizes that real support includes educational 
opportunities for every kid. It is not enough to pay lip service to the 
importance of education. Instead, this budget makes a firm commitment 
to provide $20 billion more for school construction, for teachers, for 
student loans and vocational education programs. No family, military or 
otherwise, will ever feel supported if their children are not receiving 
a top-notch education.
  Speaking of the military, our budget recognizes that real support 
includes comprehensive care for members of our military when they 
return home as veterans. This budget recognizes that it is not enough 
to provide servicemen and women with bombs and missiles while they 
serve and then ignore the sacrifices they have made to protect our 
country when they return home. That is why the Progressive/Black Caucus 
budget provides over $3 billion more for funding of veterans programs 
than President Bush. We do not just support our troops with bombs and

[[Page 6940]]

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

                              {time}  2045

  Homeland Security, for crying out loud, a pathetic .8 percent 
increase, even more when we are at orange alert and even though only 
when 2 percent of containers are inspected at ports.
  The country is hurting from a struggling economy and war, but this 
Republican budget shamefully pours salt in the wound. A vote for the 
Congressional Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus budget is a vote for 
America's working families.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is simply unfair and 
unrealistic. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
sacrificed prudence for politics. Long-term planning for short-term 
gain. How else can we explain $1.3 trillion in tax cuts, most of which 
are given to the most privileged at a time when our schools are 
crumbling, our veterans are being deprived of the healthcare that they 
need, and a $348 billion deficit.
  The Republicans have proposed cutting $51 billion for the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, depriving 5.3 million children of 
health insurance; cutting $2 billion for the Ryan White programs, 
depriving people living with AIDS, medical care, and social support 
they need; cutting $1.5 billion for community health centers, 
eliminating health care for millions of low-income and uninsured 
people; eliminating the section 8 program that provides housing for 
over 300 million low-income families. Even the President's No Child 
Left Behind education bill, which he constantly touts as a major 
success, is cut by 8 percent below the inactive level of funding year 
2003. Homeland Security is not properly funded. As a matter of fact, it 
is severely underfunded, putting our police officers, firefighters, and 
all of our first responders in danger. Where is the compassion that the 
President promised during his campaign?
  I support the Congressional Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus 
alternative budget because it truly provides relief to Americans and it 
provides a stimulus to help the economy get back on its feet. Our 
budget provides healthcare for all Americans. It provides for vital 
infrastructure improvements throughout the Nation which provide jobs 
and protect America from potential terrorist threats. It provides $3.5 
billion in relief to those inflicted with HIV/AIDS throughout the 
world, and importantly it provides our men and women in uniform the 
resources they need. It is indeed a balanced budget that does not 
burden our children with debt. We must resist this Republican budget, 
and I am going to urge my colleagues to support this alternative.
  In conclusion, the Republican budget is an unjust and shameful 
budget. If Congress enacts this budget, many Americans will be harmed.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, my constituents have been paying attention to 
what has been going on with this preemptive strike; and when they heard 
about the billions of dollars offered to Turkey and other countries in 
exchange for their support, they said to me, Ms. Waters, I thought we 
were broke. I thought we were in deficit. I thought we had no money. 
Where are you getting the billions of dollars from for Turkey and other 
countries that you are offering to them simply if they will support 
this preemptive strike?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page 6941]]

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

[[Page 6942]]

important problems facing the majority of our constituents, while at 
the same time providing the resources needed to support our troops and 
defend our homeland.

                              {time}  2100

  Let us not give tax cuts to those who do not need them. Let us invest 
in the American people, as this CBC Progressive Caucus budget does.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the 
Owens-Cummings-Kucinich-Lee alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican fiscal year 2004 
budget resolution and in strong support of the CBC/Progressive Caucus 
alternative budget. At a time when our country is facing serious 
threats of terrorism, as well as waging war on Iraq, my colleagues on 
the other side of the isle are ignoring current economic problems by 
continuing to incorporate $1.3 trillion in additional tax cuts while 
continuing to place additional burdens on the cash-strapped states.
  The Owens/Cummings/Kucinich/Lee CBC/Progressive Caucus Substitute 
advances the principles of family, hard work, inclusiveness and 
national solidarity by calling for increased federal assistance for 
education, health-care, housing, childcare and business development. 
The CBC/CPC Alternative Budget represents the values and moral 
principles that have made America great.
  As the Chair of the CBC Health Braintrust, I am particularly pleased 
that the CBC/CPC reverses many of the cuts in the President's budget 
which were seen as an attack on programs to address the health needs of 
minorities and women. Our budget also calls for the implementation of a 
single-payer universal health care plan, which will guarantee high 
standard health care at a lower cost to every person living in the 
United States, its territories and Commonwealths.
  My colleagues, the issue of health disparities for minorities 
continues to be worse than ever. Minorities are a quarter of our 
population, but make-up two-thirds of all new AIDS cases. African 
American infant mortality is twice that of whites. Diabetes afflicts 
Hispanics twice as often as whites. And African American men suffer 
prostates cancer at a rate twice that of white men.
  Last year, the Institute of Medicine, IOM, released a landmark report 
entitled: Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities 
in Health Care which documented key findings areas in health care where 
minorities receive less than adequate care and recommended various 
policy changes to eliminate these unacceptable disparities.
  These recommendations included specific funding increases, which the 
CBC/CPC budget proposes. They include increasing the budget of the 
Office of Minority Health; the budget of the National Center for 
Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institute of 
Health and increasing the budget of the Office of Civil Rights at the 
Departments of HHS to reverse the low-priority status that this 
important office in addressing racial and ethnic disparities in health 
care. We also provide increases for funding for Initiatives for Health 
Professions including the Health Careers Opportunity program, and to 
provide scholarship and loan repayment relief in order to address the 
startling under representation of ethnic and minority groups in the 
health professions.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to begin to address a number of 
the major problems facing the majority of our constituents while at the 
same time provide the resources needed to support our troops and defend 
our homeland. We can only do this however if we do not follow the wrong 
lead of our majority colleagues and cut taxes for people who don't need 
it at a time when we must increase spending.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the 
Owens/Cummings/Kucinich/Lee alternative budget.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget 
resolution tonight, and I strongly endorse the Congressional Black 
Caucus-Progressive Caucus budget resolution and our Democratic 
alternative.
  Immediately after the Republicans passed their budget out of 
committee, one of the first groups that I heard from to object to their 
proposal was the American Legion. Representing America's honorable 
veterans, the American Legion stated that, ``The budget defies common 
sense. There must be a better way to provide tax relief to the American 
people than to balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans.''
  Disabled American Veterans call the House Committee on the Budget 
budget ``indefensible and callous.'' They represent nearly 1.3 million 
disabled veterans in the country, and they believe the Republican 
budget asks veterans to ``swallow a bitter pill to remedy an illness of 
their own making.''
  Republicans are calling for a $15 billion cut in veteran benefits 
over the next 10 years. Over $800 million will be cut in health care 
programs for veterans next year alone. These budget cuts will impact a 
very large population in my own district.
  I would like to just let the Members know in my own district we have 
over 28,000 veterans from all former wars that are still alive that 
reside in my district. Many are minority veterans. Mr. Chairman, 1.4 
million of those veterans live in the Los Angeles County area; 2.3 
million of those veterans live in the State of California.
  We must keep in mind that among our troops being sent abroad right 
now are many young men and women representing our State of California. 
I know that, because I had an opportunity to meet with many of them in 
my district. I met three of them, three young women, two Asian women 
and one Latino. One was a student enrolled in college, telling me that 
her dream was to come back and become a teacher. The other two were in 
their profession. They almost had tears in their eyes, telling me that 
they had actually joined up to be in the Reserve unit, not knowing they 
would now be faced with something that was unimaginable. I pray for 
them, and I pray for their families.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that what we are doing here tonight is very 
exemplary, by supporting the Black Caucus budget, the Progressive 
Caucus and the Democratic alternative, because we care about families, 
we care about the very people that are spending their time this evening 
defending our Nation.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding me time.
  First of all, let me thank the proponents of this budget. As the 
world watches, as the Nation watches, I believe most Americans as they 
pray for the troops are wondering whether or not we are caring for them 
and their needs.
  I thank the distinguished chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, 
but I also thank the proponents and writers and authors of this 
legislation, particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) and any number of individuals, and, as I said, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Chairman Cummings).
  This is a budget that addresses the pain of America. It realizes that 
it is extremely unrealistic, Mr. Chairman, with the war looming, the 
needs of home-front security, to give, as the Republican budget wants 
to do, $726 billion in tax cuts to 1 percent of America. One percent of 
the rich of America will be getting the big chunk of the Republican 
budget.
  What a tragedy that as our firefighters are laid off, police persons 
are not being paid and EMS services are cut back, we cannot find the 
good reason to have a bipartisan budget.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget and the Progressive Caucus 
budget deals with the pain of America. It provides additional funds for 
job training and family services. It ensures that education is 
prioritized, and it really does support No Child Left Behind.
  In addition, when we talk about defense, we have unique initiatives; 
a defense school readiness initiative, which provides for 
communications equipment and training to public schools; a

[[Page 6943]]

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 80]

                                AYES--85

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

                               NOES--340

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito

[[Page 6944]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--9

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2132

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


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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

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

[[Page 6945]]

       Fiscal year 2009: $4,638,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $4,646,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $4,553,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $4,335,482,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $4,097,406,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

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

[[Page 6946]]

       (A) New budget authority, $64,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,467,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,565,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,399,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,512,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,783,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,692,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,690,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,732,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,251,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,935,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,754,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,152,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,256,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,565,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,906,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,914,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,306,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,079,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,699,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,231,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,187,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,153,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,186,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,078,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,182,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,149,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,155,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $101,344,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $104,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $103,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,105,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,956,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $231,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $227,796,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $238,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $236,574,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,424,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,184,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,423,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,524,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $292,423,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $290,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $314,333,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $312,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $337,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $335,970,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,412,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $360,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $391,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,861,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $422,084,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $420,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $455,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $453,522,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $248,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $248,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $262,022,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,023,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $278,953,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $319,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $351,571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $351,822,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $379,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $379,565,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $409,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $409,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $441,465,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $442,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $484,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $487,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $522,221,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,390,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $565,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $565,794,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $329,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $324,488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $332,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $333,684,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $340,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $342,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $350,185,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,022,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $362,757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $373,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $374,367,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $386,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $387,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $403,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $404,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,443,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $396,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $410,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $412,578,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,345,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,282,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,467,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,431,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,591,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,568,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,117,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,099,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,011,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,213,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,511,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,494,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,395,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,376,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,615,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,596,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,660,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,597,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,665,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,684,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,606,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:

[[Page 6947]]

       (A) New budget authority, $64,709,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,288,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,492,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,236,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,034,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,059,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,960,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,515,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,927,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,510,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,668,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,421,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,905,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,752,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,211,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,131,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,577,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,971,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,987,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,414,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,820,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,643,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,677,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,533,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,619,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,361,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,905,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,121,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $240,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,447,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $257,374,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $300,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $300,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $335,137,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $335,137,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $357,478,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $357,478,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $377,426,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $396,894,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $396,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $430,321,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $430,321,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $442,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $442,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,801,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $449,801,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,174,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,329,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,440,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,796,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,796,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2003:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$41,104,000,000.
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,894,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,459,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$51,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$53,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,685,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$56,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$56,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$59,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$61,229,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,229,000,000.
                        TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 201. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

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

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

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

[[Page 6948]]



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

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

     SEC. 204. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.--In the 
     House, if the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an amendment 
     thereto is offered or a conference report thereon is 
     submitted, that provides new budget authority for the budget 
     accounts or portions thereof in the highway and transit 
     categories as defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in 
     excess of the following amounts:
       (1) for fiscal year 2004: $39,233,000,000,
       (2) for fiscal year 2005: $39,998,000,000,
       (3) for fiscal year 2006: $40,841,000,000,
       (4) for fiscal year 2007: $41,684,000,000, or
       (5) for fiscal year 2008: $42,605,000,000,
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2004 
     and for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to the 
     extent such excess is offset by a reduction in mandatory 
     outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or an increase in 
     receipts appropriated to such fund for the applicable fiscal 
     year caused by such legislation or any previously enacted 
     legislation.
       (b) Adjustment for Outlays.--In the House, if a bill or 
     joint resolution is reported, or if an amendment thereto is 
     offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that 
     changes obligation limitations such that the total 
     limitations are in excess of $38,594,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2004, for programs, projects, and activities within the 
     highway and transit categories as defined in sections 
     250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 and if legislation has been 
     enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in subsection 
     (a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may increase the allocation of outlays for such 
     fiscal year for the committee reporting such measure by the 
     amount of outlays that corresponds to such excess obligation 
     limitations, but not to exceed the amount of such excess that 
     was offset pursuant to subsection (a).
                TITLE III--SENSE OF CONGRESS PROVISIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6949]]

men and women who are now in harm's way. That is not moral, it is not 
fiscally responsible, and it is pitiful policy.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Democratic budget for 
America and for generations to come.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) claim time in opposition?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, this 
substitute. We have come forward with a budget that provides 
significant increases in defense, homeland security, Social Security, 
Medicare, veterans benefits. We ask for a 1 percent cut in 
discretionary spending for 1 year, one cent on the dollar. When our 
States and local communities are having to make 5 and 10 percent cuts 
to their budget, we are asking 1 percent; and then we allow our budget 
to go up each and every year after that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the tax cut in the Republican proposal 
for 2004 is a tax cut of $1.4 trillion, which is very close to the cost 
of the war effort. I find that not only to be interesting, but 
something that we need to take a look at very, very closely.
  I think, when all is said and done on all of these different budget 
proposals, the one thing I think is absolutely sure is we have reverse 
socialism. What we are doing here is redistributing the wealth of this 
country to the top. John McCain was right-on when he said that 3\1/2\ 
weeks ago.
  We have been accused on this side of the aisle year after year of 
trying to manipulate the budget, to manufacture the budget, so the 
money is going to be shifted down to those people who are making less 
than $50,000 a year. This is not the case over the next 10 years. We 
have a redistributing of the dollar upward. That is a fact of life. Yet 
what we have done at the same time, not because one side of the aisle 
thinks more of the veterans of this country than the other, but in 
order to fit it into their budget, what they had to do is nickel and 
dime the veterans, who have already put their lives on the line. Yet we 
send young men and women to war. What guarantee are we going to give 
them when they come back that their benefits are going to be intact?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), who, I would just point out, without 
embarrassing my colleague, is an American hero, and someone who can 
speak very clearly about what our men and women are going through.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I did not know if I was going to vote 
for this budget, but after the partisan rancor that I just heard on 
this floor, I am going to vote for it. It is despicable.
  Talk about hurting veterans, talk about cutting Social Security. In 
1993 when they had the White House, the House, and the Senate, what did 
they do? They spoke and talked about tax breaks for the middle class, 
tax breaks for the middle class. What did they do? They had the highest 
tax in the history of this Nation. They cut the COLAs of veterans. They 
cut the COLAs of our active duty military.

                              {time}  2145

  Where you said you were going to decrease the tax for the middle 
class, you increased the tax for the middle class. You took and 
utilized every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund, and you had 
the gall, you have the gall to stand up here and accuse us of only for 
the rich.
  Not a single Clinton budget after you controlled the White House, the 
House and the Senate ever passed this body or the other body. We 
brought up those budgets so that the Democrats would have to vote on 
them. They were so bad, and you know how many Democrats voted for it? 
Three. That is a fact because I will tell the gentleman, I thought we 
were going to have a debate, not a finger-pointing thing here tonight, 
and I had not planned even on speaking until I heard the speakers speak 
before me, and I had questions about our budget, but not after the 
rancor that I have heard on this floor.
  You did in 1993 raise taxes. You did cut veterans' COLAs. You cut 
military COLAs. You raised the tax on the middle class, and now you 
stand here and say, oh, we want to balance a budget, and that we are 
responsible for the surplus, but not a single one of your policies ever 
passed when you had the leadership.
  It is sickening to listen to this debate. The gentleman that is 
speaking here, normally I would and I would say even tonight his 
language has been honorary, and the different budgets that he has 
presented has been honorary, and I appreciate that, but for those that 
will sit up here and point fingers and say how mean the Republicans are 
because they want to cut veterans' COLAs or they want to hurt things is 
absolutely ridiculous.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to say that in 1993 we passed a budget. We took the 
deficit then in the budget, $290 billion, down every year for the next 
7 years until it reached a surplus in the year 2000 of $236 billion, an 
exact polar opposite of what is happening right now.
  Nobody in this House stands in greater admiration of the gentleman 
from California's (Mr. Cunningham) record in the military than I do and 
my personal like for the man, but I think we have to acknowledge that 
these fellow veterans, four different groups, have all come out in 
unmitigated condemnation of this budget because of what it does to 
veterans' benefits, and nobody shows greater indignation than the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America who wrote the Speaker saying, we do not 
consider payments to war-disabled veterans, pensions for the poorest 
disabled veterans and GI benefits for soldiers returning from 
Afghanistan to be waste, fraud and abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California may not like 
what Democrats are saying about the Republican budget, so let us listen 
to what others are saying about that budget.
  Unconscionable, that is what four veterans organizations called the 
Republican budget. Callous, that is how the American Legion, Disabled 
American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars describe the Republican 
budget. Perhaps Edward Heath, Sr., the national commander of the 
Disabled American Veterans, said it best when he said this: ``Mr. 
Speaker, this budget dishonors the service of millions of service-
connected disabled veterans, including combat-disabled veterans. Is 
there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government?'' Well 
said, Commander Heath.
  In just a few minutes we are going to be voting to support our 
troops. I must say, Mr. Chairman, to my Republican colleagues, what an 
odd way to support our troops when we are also going to be voting 
tonight, at least they are going to be voting, to cut veterans' 
benefits and services by $28 billion.
  I would say that our veterans and our troops would appreciate it more 
if we supported them with our deeds, not our words, and that is why I 
am going to support the Spratt substitute, because the American Legion 
said it is a better approach. Not only does it not cut veterans' 
benefits, it keeps our commitments to veterans. It invests in our 
children's future rather than borrowing from it.
  The Spratt budget, the Democratic budget, creates jobs, not deficits, 
for as far as the eye can see. We should vote for the Spratt budget. We 
should listen to the voice of the veteran leaders of America and say no 
to the callous budget of the Republican Party.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).

[[Page 6950]]


  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Democratic budget and 
oppose the Republican budget.
  When Bill Clinton left office, we had record surpluses of $200 
billion, and in two short years, we have a deficit of $300 billion, 
deficits as far as the eye can see.
  Yes, there was a downturn in the economy. Yes, 9/11 caused part of 
it, but a large part of it were those tax cuts. What are the 
Republicans giving us now? More tax cuts for the wealthy as far as the 
eye can see.
  Never in American history has there been a proposal for tax cuts at 
the time of war. This is so fiscally irresponsible that I just cannot 
believe it. We are leaving a legacy of debt to our children and our 
grandchildren, and the Republicans want to give us deeper and deeper 
and deeper debt and dig us deeper into a hole.
  There is no economic growth in the Republican budget. There is no 
real drug plan in the Republican budget. The Democratic budget has $128 
million more for prescription drugs, $34 billion more for homeland 
security. The Republican budget gives us cuts to veterans and schools 
and Medicaid and to our senior citizens.
  The Democratic budget is responsible. The Republican budget 
subordinates all other priorities to additional lavish tax cuts. Vote 
for the Democratic budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me the time.
  We have talked a lot about what is in the budget. I would like to 
talk about two things that are not in the budget. The first 
particularly should be of interest to people who live in Washington 
State, my home State, Tennessee, Texas, Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida or 
South Dakota.
  Residents of those seven States are unjustly treated in the Tax Code, 
and this budget does nothing to correct it. Those States rely on sales 
tax to fund their State governments, but they are not allowed to deduct 
their sales tax from their Federal tax return as one is allowed to 
deduct their State income tax.
  What that does is it disadvantages our State. The Federal Government 
essentially tells our States how we should tax our citizens. I believe 
it is an issue of State rights.
  The Democratic Party introduced an amendment to the budget bill to 
fix this. Regrettably, the other side voted that down.
  The second thing that is not made allowance for in this budget is 
fixing the Medicare payment imbalance. Forty-seven percent of 
physicians in my home State, in Washington, will not see new Medicare 
patients. Why? Because the fee-for-service rates under Medicare are 
unjust. This is the case in the Committee on the Budget chairman's home 
State of Iowa.
  We had an opportunity to provide language in this bill to fix it. We 
managed to provide language to protect tax cuts, but we do not seem to 
be able to provide language to protect people for tax fairness, and we 
do not seem to be able to provide language to assure fair Medicare 
compensation rates.
  I urge the people from those States to ask their Representatives, why 
have they left us out in the cold? Why have they not solved the sales 
tax inequity? Why have they not fixed the imbalance in Medicare 
payments?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chair of our caucus.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and for his work.
  The budget is more than a series of numbers. It is about priorities 
and values and visions and commitments. It is about the kind of America 
we want to build. It is about the kind of Nation we want to bequeath to 
our children. It is about the future.
  Will we have a future of debts and deficits or a future with a 
balanced budget? Will we have a future where seniors have access to the 
medications they need, or one where they will have to choose between 
life-saving prescriptions and putting food on the table? Will we have a 
future where every child gets the education he or she deserves, or one 
where many children arrive into adulthood unprepared for the jobs and 
challenges of the 21st century? Will we have a future where Medicare 
and Social Security are there for our retirees, or one where the 
funding runs out? Will we have a future where our cities and States 
have funding they need to hire, train and supply our local first 
responders, our first line of defense against terrorism, or will we 
leave them and their communities defenseless? Will we have a future 
where our veterans have all of the benefits and services they need and 
deserve, or will we have a future where their sacrifices go 
unappreciated?
  On every single count, the Democratic plan provides a future where 
the priorities and values of the American people are met and fulfilled, 
and on every single count the Republican budget shortchanges these 
priorities of the American people by sacrificing them on the altar of a 
massive round of additional tax breaks and tax cuts. Their budget makes 
no fiscal sense, it makes no moral sense, and it makes no practical 
sense.
  We are, as I speak, as we debate, at war. Our men and women in 
uniform are fighting for our way of life, and we all stand behind them 
in their mission, but the Republican budget cuts $14.6 billion from 
mandatory veterans' benefits, including disability, burial benefits, 
pensions, rehabilitation, housing and education, and that is a 
disgrace, a disgrace. Our soldiers are fighting to protect our way of 
life, and Democrats believe we have a duty to protect them.
  Fiscally irresponsible tax breaks are not the answer to every 
problem. I believe our way of life is about more than just tax 
giveaways. Our way of life is about educating our children, taking care 
of the needs of our seniors, and building an America we can all be 
proud of.
  The Democratic budget takes care of these priorities. The Republican 
budget does not. It is that clear, it is that simple, and the choice 
for Members is to vote for a future with promise and hope, or vote for 
a future with massive debt and broken commitments.
  I urge my colleagues to look into their hearts, make the right choice 
and support the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for 
yielding me the time, and I want to agree with my friend from New 
Jersey, the previous speaker. This debate is about where our priorities 
are, and a budget is about where our priorities are in government, and 
we just have a disagreement on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. We have it year after year after year.
  Clearly, my friends on the Democrat side of the aisle are willing to 
accept higher taxes so that Federal spending can increase at a faster 
and faster rate. That is their viewpoint. We, on the other hand, 
believe that tax restraint brings about economic growth and jobs, and 
that is a lot of what this debate is about tonight.
  I have heard debate on this bill throughout the afternoon and 
evening, and I have heard things like the Republican budget slashes 
spending, we are taking hot meals away from schoolchildren, we are 
taking needed benefits away from our citizens, we are denying health 
care. Someone just said we are leaving people out in the cold. These 
are the very same arguments that we have heard year after year after 
year, debate after debate, on the budget resolution.

                              {time}  2200

  I would submit to my colleagues that hot meals have not been taken 
away from school children, benefits have not been taken away from our 
citizens, we have not denied health care or left people out in the 
cold.
  With regard to slashing spending, I would like Members to look at 
chart number 26 which shows spending trends. Since I became a Member of 
this Congress in 1995, spending has gone up at a quite remarkable rate. 
All

[[Page 6951]]

we are asking with regard to discretionary spending from the year 2003 
to the year 2004 is just a very, very modest breather. After that, 
discretionary spending continues to increase at a pace which probably 
would embarrass some of our conservatives. But this is the definition 
of slashing spending for some of our colleagues. So we need to decide 
if that is exactly what this is.
  Moving to the next chart, a statement was made about the Clinton tax 
increase, and I hope Members can see this. I have a different view and 
I have a different recollection about the Clinton tax increase and the 
result of it. When I got to Congress in the winter of 1995, President 
Clinton, who had just presided over a very large tax increase, came 
before the Congress and proposed his budget. I did not see a balanced 
budget at the end of that rainbow. I saw deficits as indicated on this 
line as far as the eye could see. As a matter of fact, under the 
Clinton budget after tax increases, the deficit would have gone up to 
$288 billion per year.
  Now Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate felt 
we could do a better job, and part of that solution was tax reductions. 
Indeed, we did reduce taxes. And guess what. We said we will balance 
the budget by restraining spending, by making some of those tough 
decisions which other people criticized as slashing and leaving people 
out in the cold. Lo and behold, in a shorter time than we even 
predicted, we had a balanced budget.
  Looking at the last chart, we seek tax reduction for one reason and 
one reason only, to grow this economy. I want to remind Members of a 
time when we were spending a larger percentage of the gross domestic 
product on national defense than we are today, a larger percentage of 
the economy than we are having to do in this Iraq situation, and that 
was in 1981 and 1982 when President Reagan ushered in a very meaningful 
tax cut for the American people. Did we have to slash programs? As a 
matter of fact, revenue grew almost every year after the Reagan tax 
cuts because the economy grew. That is what we are trying to do with 
our tax policy here.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WICKER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman put up the chart that was 
up earlier showing Clintonomics versus the last chart and agree that 
perhaps spending grew in those years because revenue for the government 
grew as well, and perhaps that President and this Congress, Democrats 
and Republicans, did a darn good job of helping the economy to grow. 
Can the gentleman concede that point?
  Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time, I would concede this, that President 
Clinton raised taxes and the very next year he was up here proposing 
deficits as far as the eye could see.
  When we cut taxes, as President Reagan did, the economy grows. These 
are simply the facts. Revenues to the government grew because people 
had jobs and they were working. I urge a defeat of this Democrat 
proposal, and a ``yes'' vote on final passage.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me follow up on what the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) stated. I was here in 1993, and 
I voted for that. It was the hardest vote I ever made, but it worked. 
And it was not because of the Republican majorities in 1995. It was 
because of a bipartisan effort that we had a balanced budget and 
surpluses in the late 1990s. Now they are gone.
  That is why I rise in opposition to the Republican budget and support 
the Spratt substitute amendment. This Republican budget does not 
provide enough. We know what we are going to have to pay for the 
military campaign in Iraq, which could range as high as $100 billion, 
and which programs will have to be cut to underwrite that $100 billion. 
What we know about this budget is it contains a monstrous tax cut that 
is paid for out of the expense of almost everything, including 
veterans, the war effort, prescription drugs for seniors. Let me repeat 
that. This tax cut affects some of the most critical entitlement 
programs, school lunches, student loans, veterans programs, and 
Medicaid and Medicare.
  In my own committee, we are asked to cut $107 billion out of Medicaid 
and literally give pennies to prescription drugs to seniors. That is 
why the Spratt substitute is so good.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just to walk down memory lane, during the Clinton 
years, we created 21 million jobs. So far, during the Bush years, we 
have seen 2.5 million private sector jobs disappear. In December 2000 
before President Clinton left office and President Bush took office, 
there were 5.17 million people unemployed. This year in January 2003, 
it is 8.4 million unemployed.
  We can go down the list. Real GDP during the Clinton years increased 
at a rate of 6.3 percent from 1993 through 2000. So far it has 
increased at a rate of 1.5 percent, and the budget every year from 1993 
onward, the bottom line of the budget, the so-called deficit got better 
and better and better under that budget that we adopted in 1993. It 
went from a record deficit of $290 billion in 1992 to $255 billion the 
next year, $203 billion the next year, $164 billion in 1995, $107 
billion in 1996, $22 billion in 1997, and balanced for the first time 
in 30 years in 1998. That was a record of that period of time and the 
result of that tough budget vote that we took in 1993.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, immoral. Immoral is the only word I can 
find to describe the Republican budget that is being forced down our 
throats this evening.
  As we go to war, this Republican package includes exactly zero 
dollars towards the war effort. This budget includes exactly zero 
dollars to bolster our troops in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. 
And for our veterans, this Republican budget cuts funding for veterans 
disability pensions and veterans health care.
  The Disabled American Veterans asked the question: Has Congress no 
shame? Unfortunately, as long as Republicans control this institution 
and force these types of budgets onto the American people, the answer 
is no, this Republican Congress has no shame.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I believe this budget is immoral, and that 
is the only word I can find to describe it. Tax cuts for the rich, cuts 
to veterans' pensions and health care and nothing for our troops. I say 
vote down this immoral Republican budget.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I know it is getting late. It is 10 p.m., but words 
like ``immoral'' and not providing money to our troops is just over the 
edge. Our troops are going to get all the money they need to do 
whatever they have to do to protect themselves and achieve their 
objective. There is no one here doubts that issue. Not one Member. To 
suggest otherwise, I think particularly tonight, is inappropriate. I do 
not think that we need to go there.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) 
said that States are having to make cuts, and you do not see why it is 
not possible that we in this Congress cannot take a 1 percent across-
the-board cut.
  I could accept that, but the only problem is where the gentleman did 
not cite the difference between the States and us is that they are not 
parading around talking about tax cuts in Tennessee, Connecticut, 
Michigan, Florida and New Mexico.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, I understand there is an objection to 
the tax cuts. I understand that debate is going to be one in which we 
will disagree. We happen to believe that tax cuts generate economic 
activity. We have an honest disagreement on that issue.

[[Page 6952]]

  I am just saying in this debate tonight when our men and women are 
fighting to even suggest for a moment that our troops are not going to 
get all of the resources they need is simply going over the edge. I 
would just suggest that we both know that we need to provide our men 
and women with everything they need, and our job is to make sure it is 
never a fair fight, that we always have the advantage, and we have done 
that.
  I think the gentleman would acknowledge that this side of the aisle 
has continually put more money into the defense budget. That is what we 
continue to do today. I just would make this point. Our men and women 
are going to get whatever they need, and we are going to have a 
supplemental that impacts this budget, not next year's budget. They 
will get whatever they need to do their job and win this war.
  We have disagreements. Our disagreements are we are putting more 
money in defense and homeland security. We believe a meaningful tax 
cut, one that is noticeable and large, will strengthen the economy and 
create jobs; and we believe that a 1 percent cut on nondefense, 
nonhomeland security discretionary spending, 1 percent for 1 year will 
make sense. What my colleague from South Carolina did not point out is 
during the late 1990s, we slowed the growth in spending for 2, almost 
3, years, and then allowed it to go up again. We believe that is why 
our budget balanced. We are going to have disagreements on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enthusiastically 
support the Spratt substitute amendment on the budget because of its 
commitment to child care, education, Medicare and Medicaid, and because 
it helps ease the pain of working Americans.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Republican's proposed budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 and in 
support of the Spratt substitute amendment. If passed, the budget 
resolution currently before the House would require the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce to cut mandatory spending programs under 
its jurisdiction by $269 million for fiscal year 2004 and $2.675 
billion for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. This is completely 
unacceptable. Education is the key to success.
  The Federal cuts come at a time when States are facing a severe 
budget crisis. According to the National Governors' Association, States 
face a combined $80 billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2004 in 
addition to a $30 billion shortfall for the current fiscal year.
  In my State of Texas, they are suffering from at least a $10 billion 
shortfall in this 2-year period.
  As I see it, all of these cuts to essential educational programs are 
being made only to benefit the wealthiest Americans--the top 1%--
through tax cuts. The President and the Republican party insist on 
cutting taxes far beyond any reasonable amount at a time when we are at 
war with Iraq and will need to occupy Iraq for years to come to 
maintain the peace and rebuild the country. They are acting 
irresponsibly by failing to include the projected cost of the war and 
its aftermath in this current budget resolution. The cost of the war 
alone has been estimated at anywhere from $70 billion to $200 billion, 
according to the Administration's former economic advisor, Lawrence 
Lindsay.
  The Republican budget also cuts $28 billion in health care and 
disability benefits for military veterans again to pay for tax cuts for 
the wealthiest Americans less than 24 hours after sending our forces 
into battle. They should be ashamed of themselves. It is unconscionable 
for the Republicans to be cutting taxes and reducing social services 
programs at a time when the United States has a large and growing 
deficit, our states are in crises, and we are at war with Iraq. History 
will not be kind when it judges the Republicans' actions.
  There is a far better alternative budget. Congressman Spratt's 
Democratic substitute offers real economic stimulus and job creation. 
It proposes responsible tax policy by continuing the implementation of 
middle-income tax cuts, such as the increased child tax credit, and by 
freezing tax cuts for the top two income tax brackets. The Spratt 
substitute meets our nation's domestic needs by providing over $200 
billion more in domestic investments than the Republican budget. It 
fully funds priority investments such as No Child Left Behind, IDEA, 
veteran's benefits, children's services, public health, transportation, 
environmental programs and agricultural programs. This alternative also 
invests in health care and a strong prescription drug plan by providing 
at least $20 billion to cover the uninsured and at least $528 billion 
for a prescription drug program under Medicare, while allowing senior 
citizens to stay with their current doctors. Finally, the Spratt 
alternative budget invests in Homeland Security and defense funding by 
increasing resources for Homeland Defense and by giving $20 billion 
more to First Responders than they would receive under the Republican 
Budget. In short, the Spratt Budget provides for America's needs, the 
needs of our people and strengthens our economy. It is a sound, 
reasonable budget blueprint, and we should support it.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republicans' proposed budget resolution is 
inherently flawed. It hurts the education system in the United States. 
It harms children's programs. It damages small businesses, which are 
the strength of the U.S. economy, and it insults our veterans and our 
troops fighting in Iraq. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the 
Spratt substitute and oppose the irresponsible, illogical, and ill-
advised Republican budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) mentioned not tonight, we do not walk the talk about what 
is happening to our veterans and military tonight. What better time to 
pull the covers off and show exactly what this Republican Party is 
doing for our veterans.

                              {time}  2215

  How in the name of any degree of decency and respect can we, on a day 
that will certainly live in infamy in the hearts of veterans, on a day 
and a time that we are sending our men and women into battle, what 
reward do we want to give our veterans who had to remember a day in 
infamy 60 years ago? What do we want to give them? A $17 billion cut 
for veterans.
  I represent the State of Georgia. I say to my friends in the 
Republican Party, and I want you to know that every weekend I go home 
that my office is lined with veterans with tears in their eyes, saying, 
how could they be so mean? Every year in campaigns my Republican 
friends run around the country, and they talk about conservative 
compassion. This is not conservative compassion. This is downright 
conservative meanness. These veterans do not appreciate it. This is why 
I say, let us support the Democratic budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, as a Democrat who voted for the 2001 Bush 
tax cut, I am here tonight to say that I would never support a vote for 
this Republican budget proposal. The Republican budget completely 
abandons the goal of a balanced budget. It embraces deficits and debt. 
It slashes critical programs for our working families, and it is 
fiscally irresponsible. The Republican budget would mean a cut of 
hundreds of millions of dollars from Nevada's hospitals and health care 
providers due to cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Nevada already has a 
health care crisis. We cannot afford these cuts in medical care for our 
elderly and our poor.
  The Republican budget eliminates after-school programs for over 2,900 
children in Nevada. Southern Nevada has one of the highest dropout 
rates in the country. Abandoning these kids who are struggling to stay 
in school would be a disaster. The Republican budget cuts almost 8 
percent from highway funding. In Nevada, the fastest-growing State in 
the country, this translates into a $16 million cut and represents a 
loss of more than 760 construction jobs for Nevada.
  At a time that our Nation is going to war, the Republican budget cuts 
$28

[[Page 6953]]

million from the veterans budget. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the Spratt proposal and not the Republican budget debacle.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, there are words we should remember. There 
are quotes worth quoting again. Here is one:
  ``If we are to prevail in the long run, we must expand the long-run 
strength of our economy. We must move along the path to a higher rate 
of growth and full employment.
  ``For this would mean tens of billions of dollars more for each year 
in production, profits, wages and public revenues. It would mean an end 
to the persistent slack which has kept our unemployment at or above 5 
percent for 61 of the past 62 months.''
  ``To achieve these greater gains, one step, above all, is essential, 
the enactment this year of a substantial reduction and revision in 
Federal income taxes.
  ``For it is increasingly clear, to those in government, business and 
labor who are responsible for our economy's success, that our obsolete 
tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits 
and employment. Designed to check inflation in early years, it now 
checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It 
distorts the use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, 
depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget deficits.''
  ``This net reduction in tax liabilities will increase the purchasing 
power of American families and business enterprises in every tax 
bracket, with the greatest increase going to our low-income consumers. 
It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-taking on which 
our free system depends, induce more investment, production and 
capacity use, help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year, 
and reinforce the American principle of additional reward for 
additional effort.''
  Mr. Chairman, there are Democrats that we should quote, there are 
Democratic words that we should remember, and those that I have just 
quoted came from the Democratic President of the United States, John 
Fitzgerald Kennedy, in his State of the Union message in 1963.
  There is a contemporary Democrat who offers to his party also very 
good advice. It, of course, is Democrat Bill Richardson from the State 
of New Mexico, who says that ``reducing taxes,'' and this year he is 
talking about, this is not in 1963, he is talking about 2003, 
``reducing taxes puts us on the road to economic growth.'' His plan 
reduces New Mexico's income tax by 40 percent, from the current 8.2 
percent to 4.9 percent. He agrees that his plan sounds sort of like the 
Bush tax-cutting agenda.
  All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is this. There was a time when the 
Democratic Party could be counted on to do the right thing for the 
government, to do the right thing regardless of whether or not you 
could make a class envy debate out of this thing. They knew it was the 
right thing to do. It was the right thing to do when the President of 
the United States said so in 1963, it is the right thing to do today 
when the Democratic Governor of New Mexico says to do it, and I 
encourage this body to do it by striking down this substitute and 
supporting the underlying amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my good friend the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) that Governor Richardson in New Mexico, we 
applaud him for what he has done.
  There are many on this side who believe that tax cuts should be a 
viable part of any stimulus plan. The only problem is the tax cut that 
you propose we do not believe will actually stimulate very much, nor 
will it help us to achieve the balanced budgets that my friend the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) claims he wants, and I believe 
that he actually wants, even though he was a bit condescending when he 
told me to shut up a few seconds ago.
  I will say this to my friend, Bill Richardson and other Governors 
across this Nation, Bill Richardson was here a few days ago along with 
Governor Bush and another Governor, talking about Medicaid dollars and 
complaining to this Congress that the cuts we are imposing on his 
hospitals in his State as well as Governor Bush's State and other 
States are far too onerous.
  All we ask on this side is that we be honest about the moment we 
face. Many of us on this side have rallied behind this President and 
our Commander in Chief in this effort against Iraq and this war on 
terrorism. I resent my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), for whom I have great affection, for some of the words. I 
understand the passion sometimes, it happens to me, it gets to us and 
perhaps allows our words to get away from us. I am sure he did not mean 
some of the personal things he said this evening.
  Our budget, I believe, we believe, is better for the country than 
yours. It is about priorities. Next election cycle we will see who is 
right, but I can tell this to the gentleman from Connecticut, I want to 
win this war, I want to see this economy grow, and I can assure you 
that everyone on this side of the aisle wants that as well. We just 
think our budget is better.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, here is the dilemma we are faced with. If this budget 
passes and becomes real, which I doubt, it will be devastating to our 
children and their education, to our seniors and their security, and to 
some of the most worthy citizens we know, sick and disabled veterans. 
On the other hand, if it passes and does not become real, if those cuts 
are not actually made, then it will devastate the bottom line of our 
budget.
  Those of us who have been here a long time can tell you how 
intractable deep deficits can become. For 15 years we struggled to get 
ourselves in surplus, and in 2 years we have blown it. That is why we 
are out here intensely tonight fighting. Important principles are at 
stake.
  I have to say to my colleague and wonderful friend, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), when I first saw this budget on the day 
of markup, I said, ``It ain't on the level. I can't take it at face 
value.'' The better I understand it, the less credence I give it. I 
honestly think it is just a clever device for passing another round of 
tax cuts as large as the last, $1.35 trillion, despite the fact that 
this time there is no surplus. It goes straight to the bottom line and 
increases the deficit.
  Here the numbers are displayed on this chart. If you want a choice 
between us and them, here it is, Mr. Chairman. Here it is, colleagues. 
Our budget every year has a lower and lower deficit until the year 2010 
when it is no longer in deficit, it is in surplus. We put the budget 
back in surplus. That is our driving purpose. The first parameter we 
set for ourselves was we are going to get to balance in a reasonable 
period of time, and that date turned out to be 2010.
  If you compare the Republican chart, you will see they do not get to 
balance until the year 2012, 2 years later, and that depends, Mr. 
Chairman, on some stupendous cost-cutting around here. I have been here 
20 years. I just do not think that they are going to be able to 
accomplish it.
  I heard these colloquies over here on the House floor. The gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), one of the ablest Members of this House, 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, he had a colloquy that, 
in effect, said, you don't expect me really to get $40 billion out of 
government retirement pensions, do you? The answer was basically, no, 
you've got other mandatory programs. You can reform procurement, for 
example, and save $40 billion.
  Give me a break. That is not going to happen. This is a serious, 
serious effort and exercise, because if we are wrong here, we will live 
with the consequences for a long, long time.
  We have before us a real choice to this budget which we have brought 
to the House floor from the House Budget

[[Page 6954]]

Committee. We have got a choice that is a far better choice, the 
Democratic substitute. It is a fiscally sound choice because our budget 
balances in 2010; theirs balances in 2012. Our budget racks up less 
debt during that 10-year time frame, $913 billion less debt, and, 
listen to this, $1.647 trillion less debt than the President's budget.
  Our budget is fair and sensible. The Democratic budget weighs 
priorities. The Republican budget wreaks havoc. Indeed, much of our 
budget is devoted to restoring the damage the Republican budget does.
  The Republican budget cuts education and training by $60 billion. It 
flat-funds Leave No Child Behind, even though the authorizing act calls 
for $9 billion next year. We restore that cut and add to the education 
function.
  The Republican resolution wipes out Justice Department programs like 
community policing. We can all attest to its effectiveness. It drops 
and cuts out Byrne grants. It drops level funding for these Justice 
Department programs by $35 billion. Do you know who you are cutting 
when you are doing that? The famous first responders. These people that 
we talk about, but do so little for, they are the victims. We do not 
stand for that in our budget. We restore those programs because we 
think this is the first line of homeland defense, and we put $24 
billion more in our budget than they do for homeland security.
  We have heard it charged on the floor today that our budget increases 
spending. Let me just lay that argument to rest once and for all with a 
chart that is taken straight from the numbers in our budget. As you can 
see, this year we are spending about 20.4 percent total spending of 
GDP. Following the path laid down by our budget, that will decline to 
19.1 percent of GDP in 2013. In the years 2004 through 2013, the 10-
year time frame of this budget, our spending will grow by 4.6 percent 
over that 10-year period of time. That will be the annual rate of 
growth. That is less than the GDP nominal growth rate.
  Let me finally say that our bill also has in it something that is 
critically important. We have got a weak, wobbly economy. We have got 
in our bill the stimulus package, which we think is an excellent 
package. It was offered by us on January 6 of this year. We say, let us 
enact it. Let us help those who are unemployed, let us give this 
economy a kick, let us give those who are likely to spend it a rebate 
straight to their pockets. It will be spent on the economy. Let us give 
small businesses extra expensing. Let us help large businesses by 
saying, if you will do something in 2003, we will give you a 50 percent 
depreciation.
  It is dramatic, it is bold, and when you compare it by any of the 
established economic models, we get two to three times the results in 
GDP growth and job creation that the Republicans get for spending six 
times as much money in their jobs and growth package.
  We have a real choice, a stark choice today, and far better the 
choice is our Democratic substitute. Vote for the Spratt substitute. 
Vote for the Democratic substitute. It is the best choice by far.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Democrat budget. I find it 
fascinating that we have so much angst about the deficit on this side 
of the aisle. I have a lot of angst about the deficit. I do not want to 
leave our children a legacy of debt. I have a 1-year-old. I want to 
leave them a legacy of freedom and opportunity. But, Mr. Chairman, the 
tax relief in the Republican package accounts for less than 5 percent 
of this budget.

                              {time}  2230

  If there is so much angst over the deficit, why does the Democrat 
budget not focus on 95 percent of the problem, which is spending? Our 
budget increases spending, increases it by 3 percent. How much is 
enough? Over 5 years we have increased the VA, HUD, and independent 
agencies by 35.7 percent, Transportation by almost 80 percent, HHS by 
96 percent. If every Government program was so great for the American 
people, why do we not simply double these budgets? Why do we not triple 
these budgets? Why do we not quadruple the budgets? Why do we not tell 
the American people to quit sending us State, local, and Federal taxes 
of 40 percent? Why do they not just send it all to us?
  The point we are making is that good things can be done perhaps 
outside of this Government. I mean, the Democrats talk and accuse us of 
cutting programs. It is their budget that cuts education programs. It 
is their budget that cuts housing programs because in our budget we 
help American families pay for their programs. Our budget is going to 
allow 46 million married couples to keep over $1,700 more of what they 
earn. That is enough to pay two mortgage payments. That is a housing 
program and the Democrat budget cuts it.
  Under our budget, 34 million families with children would keep an 
additional $1,500, enough to purchase a personal computer for their 
children. That is an education program and the Democrat budget cuts it. 
Six million single mothers would keep $541. That is enough to purchase 
a month of daycare. That is a childcare program. And the Democrat 
budget cuts it.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot tax our way into prosperity, spend our way 
into prosperity, or sue our way into prosperity; and we need to reject 
this Democrat budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic 
leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his distinguished leadership in putting together the 
Spratt proposal this evening.
  I rise in strong support of the Spratt budget resolution and in 
opposition to the Republican budget on the floor tonight. I want to 
congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his 
great leadership. I also want to commend the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Owens) for his leadership on the Congressional Black Caucus budget 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for his leadership on the 
Blue Dog budget. All three of these Democratic budgets are far superior 
to the Republican proposal.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that our Federal budget should be a 
statement of our national values. We should allocate our resources to 
those proposals that are important to us.
  Let me ask my colleagues, is it a statement of your values to cut 
funding in the education of our children in order to give a tax cut to 
the wealthiest in America? I did not think so. America's children 
deserve better.
  Is it a statement of your values to give a meager drug prescription 
benefit and cut nursing home care to America's seniors while giving the 
most of the tax breaks to those who need it least? I did not think so 
either. America's seniors deserve better.
  Is it a statement of your values to cut funding for America's 
disabled veterans and not include one penny for a war budget as we send 
our young men and women into harm's way? America's veterans and 
servicemen and women deserve better.
  Is it a statement of your values to underfund Homeland Security while 
we are on high alert? The American people deserve better.
  The Republican budget is clearly not a statement of our national 
values. It explodes the deficit, fails to create jobs, and fails to 
invest in the education and health care initiatives that this country 
needs for long-term economic growth.
  I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his 
masterful leadership in developing a Democratic budget that creates 
jobs, in fact, 1 million new jobs this year. The Spratt proposal 
balances the budget, sparks economic growth, funds the priorities of 
working families, education for their children, prescription drugs for 
their parents and grandparents, health care for our veterans, and 
resources for the police and firefighters who protect our communities.

[[Page 6955]]

  This Democratic budget invests in our children. The Republican budget 
indebts them. This Democratic budget gives the American people the 
responsible budget they deserve. The Republican budget is reckless and 
irresponsible. On every measure important to working families, the 
Democratic budget is better.
  We will fight this unconscionable Republican budget at every 
opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Spratt.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It is getting late. I know we are going to have a 2-hour dialogue of 
strong support for our men and women in battle. I would like to 
conclude by making a number of points, but not using all my time.
  First, there is really no one I respect more on either side of the 
aisle than the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and I 
appreciate the graciousness in which he does his business and the 
conviction with which he expresses it and the work that he and his 
staff and his members do.
  My comments are meant to just explain differences and not to describe 
character; but when we were debating this bill last week, we looked at 
amendments to the budget that only increase spending. We did not see 
any Democratic amendment that cuts spending. Admittedly, they reduce 
the tax cuts and therefore added more taxes than we would have. That is 
true. But there was $1 trillion of more spending, and I would submit 
that during the 20 years that my colleague talks about serving in this 
Congress, the only time he ever saw Congress balance the budget was 
under a Republican Congress. He never saw it happen under a Democratic 
Congress. He never saw a debt paid back under a Democratic Congress. So 
I understand that we have clearly been very proud of the fact that we 
on the Republican side of the aisle, working with Democrats, balanced 
the budget and started to pay down debt and now we have gone in a 
different direction.
  It does not surprise me, though. The economy has slowed down. We had 
a horrific attack on September 11, 2001, that I think most people know 
had an impact on the budget. Ten percent of our gross domestic product 
came to a standstill with the airline industry and tourism. So we all 
understand that. We just have a difference in how we generate economic 
activity because both sides recognize that we ultimately balance the 
budget by growing this economy and getting more revenue. That is what 
we know happened. And the difference is a 1 percent reduction in 
mandatory and discretionary nondefense, nonhomeland security, non-
Social Security, non-Medicare that we think is something that grown men 
and women can do. And when my colleagues on that side of the aisle 
ascribe a cut in a particular part of the budget, what they had to do 
was they had to assume that we were going to cut more than 1 percent 
and where we were going to make that cut was in the particular area 
they wanted.
  The disadvantage we have is that we decided to allow the 
appropriators to make that decision, unlike what we did in the 
Committee on the Budget I was on a few years ago in 1996 and 1997 where 
we specified those cuts, we said the appropriators can make those 
decisions, and I am absolutely certain that in most instances described 
on the other side of the aisle, those cuts would not be made there. 
That is what I believe because we are talking about a 1 percent cut in 
1 year and then we allow the budget to grow the next year and the next 
year and the next year and the next year. Nine years we allow it to 
grow, but our logic is make the reductions this year because then we 
see benefit in all the years that follow.
  Maybe it is hard here, but when I was in the Statehouse and on the 
Committee on Appropriations for 13 years, we sometimes had to reduce 
the budget by 5 percent or more; and what we did is we sat down with 
the department heads and said, This is what we have got to do, where 
would you like the cuts to be? We met with our version of GAO and said, 
Where do you think it should be? Our version of the Inspector Generals, 
and we put it all together, and we came down with where we thought the 
cuts should be. A 1 percent reduction 1 year is what we are asking for.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would just say we do want to protect 
America. We do want to increase the defense budget and homeland 
security, and we do. We do want to strengthen the economy and create 
jobs. We do it by a tax cut. On the other side of the aisle, you do it 
by spending increases and a much smaller tax cut, and we ultimately 
want to balance the budget and now your budget will balance 2 years 
sooner under a static model. We believe under a dynamic model when we 
restrain spending and we have tax cuts, we will see it balance sooner.
  We saw that happen in 1990. We did not get credit in 1990 when we had 
our 7-year plan to balance the budget. The CBO would not give us 
credit, but we balanced it in 3 years, 4 years sooner than we thought.
  You may not agree with what I have said, but that is the reality as 
we see it, and that is the differences we have, and they are honest 
disagreements; but the one thing we do not have a disagreement on, and 
that is what I was trying to explain to my colleague. Our men and women 
are going to get whatever they need to win whatever war they are 
fighting and to make sure it is never a fair battle. On that 
Republicans and Democrats are totally and completely united. Totally 
and completely.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the budget 
proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spratt. The 
Republican majority of the House Budget Committee approved a federal 
budget reducing funding for veterans' health care and benefit programs 
by nearly $25 billion. The actual spending impact of these cuts would 
be even greater.
  Over a ten-year period the GOP is proposing a cut of almost $9 
billion in veterans' health care--an average of more than $900 million 
less than the President has proposed per year. For other veterans' 
benefits, including cash payments to veterans disabled by military 
service, the Republican budget calls for a $15 billion cut in spending 
from current levels during the next ten years.
  In sharp contrast to the Republican's proposal, the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs, on a bipartisan basis, recommended adding $3 billion 
to the President's budget next year for veteran discretionary programs 
including medical care and research, construction, and programs that 
fund the administrative costs of other important benefits such as 
compensation, pension, and education programs. A group of Veterans 
Service Organizations who support the Independent Budget also recommend 
an increase over the President's budget of almost that much.
  The Republicans also spurned other efforts to increase funding for 
the nation's veterans. An amendment in the Budget Committee offered by 
Darlene Hooley to add $1 billion for veterans' health care and restore 
cuts in mandatory programs was voted down on a largely party-line vote.
  Passing the Republican's budget will mean serious problems for 
veterans' health care. Among them, Congress will have to seriously 
consider the new copayments and enrollment fees proposed by the Bush 
Administration in order to keep the system operating in the next fiscal 
year. Some of these proposals include retaining the ineligibility for 
new Priority 8 veterans for VA health care services indefinitely, 
requiring Priority 7 and 8 veterans to have an annual enrollment fee in 
addition to increased copayments for pharmaceutical drugs and primary 
care and providing only veterans with highly rated service-connected 
disabilities (more than 70 percent) VA Nursing Home care.
  In addition, passage of the Republican's budget would mean there 
would be no additional funds available to implement the Homeless 
Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act to work toward the goal of 
elimination chronic homelessness in a decade. It would also mean that 
the current exercise Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services 
(CARES) that VA is undertaking to assess the best use of its physical 
infrastructure will become a ``de facto'' closure commission with no 
ability to respond to veterans' needs for primary care, long-term care, 
and mental health projected by its own models. There would be little 
money leftover for any of the system's desperately needed construction 
projects.
  As serious as the problems for health care would be, the implications 
of the scheduled cuts for veterans' benefits would be even

[[Page 6956]]

worse. The Administration's Budget for 2004 makes no provision for 
additional service-connected disability benefits resulting from the 
present war with Iraq. As we know from the last war in the Persian 
Gulf, war results in adverse health effects and justifiable claims for 
service connected disability compensation. It does acknowledge the 
expected increase in veteran's claims and an expected worsening of the 
disabilities of some service-connected veterans. Under these 
circumstances, cuts in mandatory spending can only be made by cutting 
benefits to veterans with service-connected disabilities.
  Ninety percent of the mandatory spending the Budget Committee 
proposes to cut is from cash payments to service disabled veterans, 
low-income wartime veterans and their survivors. I do not believe that 
as our young men and women are fighting in Iraq and defending freedom 
in other parts of the world, we should pass a budget which will not 
fully compensate them for any disabilities they acquire during, or as a 
result of, that service.
  Other programs funded with mandatory spending are the Montgomery G.I. 
Bill education benefits, vocational rehabilitation and independent 
living programs for service-disabled veterans, subsidies for VA home 
loans and insurance for service-disabled veterans and funds to provide 
headstones, markers and flags for decreased veterans.
  As our Nation enters a war certain to result in disability and death 
for young Americans, the Budget Committee's proposed requires the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs to make permanent cuts in the benefits 
paid to those disabled by virtue of their service to our Nation. These 
cuts must be made, so that our government can afford to provide a tax 
cut which will benefit only the wealthiest Americans, many of whom have 
never served in the military.
  In contrast, Mr. Spratt's amendment would restore the cut for 
benefits and health care and add $200 million to the VA health care 
budget.
  I ask you now, who deserves to receive the benefits of the national 
treasury--America's disabled veterans or America's millionaires? I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, at a time when our federal budget faces 
huge deficits and we are engaged in a large military campaign halfway 
around the globe, now is not the time to slash taxes. Never in the 
history of our country have we fought a major war and cut taxes at the 
same time. Yet that is exactly what the Republican budget resolution 
does. These serious times demand that we act prudently, and that means 
we must pass a budget that meets our financial obligations.
  The Republican budget makes permanent the $1.35 trillion tax cut 
passed in 2001, at a cost of $523 billion. It also implements the $694 
billion ``Growth'' bill, the centerpiece of which is the elimination of 
the dividend tax. This plan will fail to spark an economic turnaround 
because it applies to only 25% of the population and less than 5% of 
the benefits take place this year when the economy needs it the most. 
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, a similar 
tax cut proposed by the Administration would add $2.2 trillion in 
deficits over the next 5 years.
  Because the first priority of the Republican budget is to cut taxes, 
programs dedicated to health care, education, and the environment 
suffer drastic cuts. To make room for tax cuts, at least $265 billion 
over ten years is slashed from programs like veterans' benefits, loans 
for college students, school lunch programs, and Medicaid.
  Most concerning is that we really don't know how much the military 
operations and our occupation of Iraq will cost, but we do know that 
the U.S. alone will carry the tremendous burden of that responsibility. 
Estimates vary widely, and the lowest, most optimistic figure is $80 
billion. With that enormous figure added to this year's deficit of $304 
billion, common sense dictates that we refrain from additional tax cuts 
and return fiscal sanity to the budget process.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic budget alternative, 
which offers a sound, practical way to stimulate economic activity 
while paying down the debt and saving critical social programs. The 
Democratic proposal includes $136 billion in tax cuts and targeted 
investments this year. At less than one-sixth the cost of the 
Republican ``Growth'' bill, the plan allows the budget to recover while 
giving the economy the immediate boost it so desperately needs.
  The Democratic alternative ensures that critical social services will 
continue to be provided at their current levels by restoring the cuts 
made in the Republican Resolution. It also provides $528 billion in new 
money for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, while the Republican 
proposal only offers $128 billion. The Democratic measure allocates $34 
billion more for homeland security and $60 billion more for education 
over the next ten years, adds $10 billion more to help working families 
with child care over five years, and protects funding for Low Income 
Heating Energy Assistance Program, Women Infants and Children 
Nutrition, housing programs and other important initiatives.
  If we pass another round of irresponsibly large tax cuts, government 
deficits will spiral out of control, especially as war increases our 
overall spending. We cannot saddle our children and grandchildren with 
this debt--we must decide now to adhere to the principals of fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we take up this budget debate at a 
moment of great national challenge. The men and women of our armed 
forces have begun military action in Iraq. We wish them a swift and 
successful end to hostilities with a minimum loss of life on all sides. 
At this moment, when they are demonstrating such courage and sacrifice, 
we here at home must make responsible decisions about the kind of 
America we want for them and our children. The decisions we make 
tonight will affect the well being of our troops and all Americans for 
years to come. We must make important decisions about the future 
economic health of our nation and what investments we decide to make 
for the common good.
  We need to adopt an economic plan that will put America back to work 
and a budget that reflects the priorities of the American people. Just 
as each family must make tough decisions about their own household 
budgets, so must we make tough decisions for our entire American 
family. How we decide to invest our collective resources should tell us 
a lot about what we care about as a people and who we are. The budgets 
and economic plans we adopt should reflect the values and priorities of 
the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the people in my district. 
I think I understand their priorities. And I believe that what they 
care about is what every American cares about. They want a country 
where every child has the opportunity to get a great start in life with 
a first rate education. They want a country where every American has 
access to quality health care. They want an America where there is a 
job for every individual ready to roll up their sleeves and go to work. 
And they want to know that their government is taking all reasonable 
steps to protect our homeland and be prepared to respond to national 
emergencies. These are the simple things we want for our families, our 
neighbors and our fellow Americans.
  We are a great nation. We can do these things. Unfortunately, the 
Republican budget before us does not begin to meet the needs and 
priorities of our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, just a short time ago I had the privilege of sitting in 
this chamber when the President gave his State of the Union address. At 
the outset of his speech, he made the following statement: ``We will 
not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to 
other Congresses, to other Presidents and other generations.''
  Unfortunately, neither the budget submitted by the President nor the 
Republican Budget Committee proposal before us today passes that test. 
In fact the budget before us today does exactly what the President says 
he does not want to do. It does ignore our problems and, if we don't 
fix those problems we will be simply passing the buck to future 
Congresses, future Presidents, and future generations.
  Look at education. Last year, with great fanfare, the President 
signed the Leave No Child Behind bill at the White House. Yet the ink 
was barely dry before the administration submitted a budget that fell 
well short of the promised funding. Well, when you leave the funding 
behind, you leave millions of children behind with nothing but broken 
promises. And the Republican proposal falls $9 billion short--almost 25 
percent--of the funds authorized. That is a terrible message to send to 
our school children and teachers.
  Look at health care. The Republican budget contains no meaningful 
proposal to address the problem of the 41 million Americans who have no 
health insurance. Apparently the Republican budget proposes to leave 
this problem to future Congresses and generations.
  How about domestic security? The Republican's proposed budget ignores 
many of the needs outlined by the agency heads at the U.S. Customs 
Service, the Coast Guard, the Department of Energy and elsewhere. They 
have said they need far more resources to meet the threat than what is 
proposed in the Republican budget.
  So what have the House Republicans proposed? What is their top 
domestic priority? Another huge tax cut that overwhelmingly benefits 
the super wealthy. Like the President, the

[[Page 6957]]

House Republicans have decided that the most pressing domestic 
problem--the one issue that cannot wait--is that the super wealthy are 
paying too much in taxes. That comes on the heels of the $1.4 trillion 
tax cut from 2001 that disproportionately benefits the very wealthy.
  And what will be the result of the Republican tax cut plan directed 
mostly to the wealthy? Even administration officials have conceded that 
it will do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy right now. The 
real result will be rivers of red ink and rising interest rates. The 
Republican plan would result in a $324 billion deficit this year and 
lead to one of the sharpest reversals in America's fiscal fortunes in 
history. And that doesn't even include one penny of the cost of the 
ongoing war with Iraq and its aftermath. The President's policies would 
take us from a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years to a 
projected $2.1 trillion deficit. The Republican Budget Committee 
proposal masks these long-term deficits by calling for huge and 
unrealistic cuts. The actual result of their tax cut proposals will be 
exploding deficits.
  Who's going to pick up the tab for this growing mountain of debt? The 
American people of course. It's simple. There are only two ways to deal 
with it in the long run. Either we substantially raise taxes on the 
next generation or we dramatically cut the areas of largest 
expenditure--Social Security and Medicare. Already, funds from the 
Social Security trust fund are going to pay for the President's last 
round of tax cuts. Remember that ``lock box?'' Well, the lock has been 
picked and the raid is on. The Republican budget plan makes the problem 
even worse. It is a guided missile aimed at the heart of Social 
Security. And its not just money in the trust fund that will be lost; 
we will also lose the trust of the American people.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned with the reckless economic 
course proposed in the Republican budget. It does exactly what the 
President said in his State of the Union that he does not want to do--
it ignores our very real current needs, and passes on the burdens of 
huge tax cuts to Social Security, Medicare and future Congresses and 
generations. I believe the Republican budget plan is out of touch with 
the true hopes and aspirations of the American people.
  We have an obligation to confront our needs squarely now. We need to 
talk straight to the American people. The Democratic budget 
alternatives we are debating tonight all reflect the values and 
priorities of the American people better than the Republican plan. They 
correct the serious defects in the proposed Republican budget. All of 
them provide a great national investment in education, health care, 
homeland security, and prescription drug coverage for seniors. And they 
all do so without running up the huge deficits and debt contained in 
the Republican plan.
  One shortcoming in the Democratic plans, however, is that--although 
they all provide a greater investment in our children's education than 
the Republican proposal, none of them reach the full level of funding 
promised in the Leave No Child Behind legislation. Full funding for 
Leave No Child Behind, IDEA and the other educational commitments we 
have made must be a top priority. I will continue to press for a budget 
that keeps all the promises we have made America's children.
  While I am disappointed that the Democratic alternatives do not 
provide for full funding of these educational commitments, they come 
far closer than the Republican proposal. They also meet many other 
needs that are neglected in the Republican budget. I hope this Congress 
will adopt an economic plan and a budget that reflects the true 
priorities of the American people and does not pass the buck to future 
generations.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the Democratic 
budget and I reject the Republican budget.
  The Democratic Budget invests in education and training. Our budget 
provides $3.2 billion more for education and training than the GOP 
budget in FY 2004 alone. Over the next 10 years the Democratic budget 
provides $44 billion more than the GOP budget. These budget increases 
mean increased funding for No Child Left Behind programs which reduce 
class sizes and provide advanced training for teachers.
  The Democratic Budget also invests more in discretionary health care 
programs than the GOP Budget. The Democratic budget provides $2.9 
billion more for discretionary health care in FY 2004, and $27.8 
billion more over the next 10 years than the Republican Budget. 
Programs such as health professions training, rural health programs, 
Ryan White AIDS activities, and Healthy Start will be the direct 
beneficiaries of the Democratic Budget proposal.
  The Democratic Budget is also preferable to the GOP Budget in 
Veterans' Health Care. The Democratic Budget provides $23 billion more 
than the GOP budget over the next 10 years for Veterans' programs. It 
provides $17 billion more for discretionary veterans' programs. It 
provides $15 billion more for mandatory veterans' programs--where the 
GOP budget cuts $15 billion from mandatory veterans' programs.
  Finally, the Democrats budget call for spending $34 billion more than 
the GOP budget on Homeland Security over the next 11 years. On the 
other hand, the GOP budget freezes homeland security funding at the 
2003 level. The Democratic budget, for example, would ensure that $3.5 
billion in desperately-needed new money would be available for police 
officers, firefighters and emergency medical personnel. The GOP budget 
does not.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 81]

                               AYES--192

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

                               NOES--236

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella

[[Page 6958]]


     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Buyer
     Gephardt
     Hyde
     Lipinski
     Thornberry
     Udall (CO)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  2305

  Mr. BURGESS and Mr. SOUDER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2004 and setting forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 
2013, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________