[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6983-6994]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 95.

                              {time}  0210


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 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, with Mr. Isakson (Chairman pro tempore) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier this legislative day, amendment No. 4 printed in part B of 
House Report 108-44, as modified, offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) had been disposed of.
  It is now in order for a period of final debate on the concurrent 
resolution.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I will close our side of the debate, and I 
only have one speaker. I believe I have that opportunity to do so; so I 
allow the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) to go first.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to claim my time and make a closing statement.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not just another partisan vote. This is a 
pivotal vote with long-lasting consequences, and I urge everybody to 
ponder those consequences and beg everyone's indulgence at this hour to 
make just a few comments. When I came to this House 20 years ago, the 
Government was deep in debt. Over the 1980s the national debt tripled. 
It took us almost 20 years to rid the Government's budget of deficits. 
It took Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, which passed in 1985, the Budget Summit 
Agreement in 1990, the Clinton Budget of 1993, and the Balanced Budget 
Agreement of 1997.
  These efforts finally bore fruit. After we passed the Clinton act in 
1993, each year thereafter for 7 straight years, the bottom line of the 
budget got better to the point where in 1993 for the first time in 30 
years the budget was in balance.

                              {time}  0215

  Mr. Bush took office with an advantage few Presidents in recent times 
have enjoyed. He had a surplus, a big-time surplus. The Office of 
Management and Budget, OMB, estimated from 2002 through 2011, the 
surplus would be $5.6 trillion.
  Based on that projection and over the admonitions of many of us, Mr. 
Bush requested and Congress passed $1.35 trillion in tax cuts. Now, 
just 2 years later, that $5.6 trillion surplus is gone. That is what 
CBO and OMB told us when we opened the budget season in January of this 
year.
  OMB told us that it had overstated the surplus. Adjusting it for what 
we now know about the economy, they said the adjusted surplus is not 
$5.6 trillion from 2002 through 2011, it is more like $2.4 trillion, 
and, more than that, about $2.5 trillion has already been committed in 
new tax cuts and

[[Page 6984]]

newly legislated spending, much of it for national defense. This means 
that any new tax cuts we pass will go straight to the bottom line. They 
will add dollar for dollar to the deficit.
  In 2001, you could rationalize an enormous tax cut on the grounds 
that we had an enormous surplus, but you cannot do that anymore. 
Nevertheless, the President sent us a budget this year requesting 
another $1.6 trillion in tax cuts, another round of tax reduction, as 
large as the last, with only a few modest offsets in it. All of it goes 
to the bottom line. When CBO did its analysis of the President's 
budget, it saw nothing but deficits, on-budget deficits, totaling over 
$5 trillion between now and 2013.
  The chairman of the Committee on the Budget and his colleagues 
embraced the President's tax cuts. They totaled some $1.6 trillion, but 
they pared them down a bit, and then they went looking for offsets. 
They weren't able to identify specific spending offsets, so they 
settled on just across-the-board percentage cuts to entitlement 
spending under the jurisdiction of 14 different committees. Initially 
they asked for $470 billion in entitlement spending. They settled later 
for less because they needed the votes to get it passed on their side 
of the aisle.
  Today we have some $262 billion in entitlement cuts entailed by this 
budget resolution. These will come out of programs within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, that is Medicare; and 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, that is Medicaid, $107 billion.
  So if you vote for this resolution, you should know that you are 
still voting very possibly to cut Medicare by $62 billion, Medicaid by 
$107 billion, government pensions and railroad retirement by over $40 
billion, veterans' disability benefits by $15 billion, school lunches 
and student loans by nearly $10 billion, and all of this is occasioned 
by the fact that you want to go forward with this tax cut of $1.3 
trillion to $1.4 trillion. Because without it, the budget will be in 
balance between 2008 and 2010, if you just let the spending increase 
each year at the level of current service.
  You should also know that this resolution calls for limits on 
domestic discretionary spending that will make it lower than inflation 
or current services by $244 billion over the next 10 years. It has been 
claimed on this House floor that these were just cuts of 1 percent, but 
when you provide for a big increase in international affairs, $51 
billion is what the President sought over 10 years, and another big 
increase in homeland security, the rest of the accounts in 
discretionary spending have to be squeezed, and by our calculations 
they are squeezed easily by 6 percent.
  That may not seem crippling, but look what is happening to education 
in this budget. Education is brought in $50 billion below inflation. At 
this level we will never fully fund Leave No Child Behind; we will 
never get close to sharing our fair share of IDEA. That is true for 
other programs throughout the discretionary accounts. Veterans' health 
care, for example, it is cut by $13 billion to $15 billion, although 
today right now it has more veterans than it can say grace over to care 
for.
  Mr. Chairman, I deeply doubt that these cuts will ever be achieved. 
Let us not forget what happened last year. We only passed 2 of 13 
appropriations bills in 2002, did not finish the last 11 until a few 
weeks ago, and those were hard to pass because they had spending 
restraints on them that are a lot less challenging than what this bill 
will call for.
  So what happens if the cuts are not achieved? The deficit goes 
higher, we stack up a mountain of debt. But, unlike the 1980s, we are 
right now on the eve of the retirement of the baby-boomers, and that 
will make the task of turning these deficits around more intractable 
and difficult than ever, believe me.
  So, before you vote for this resolution, you should ask yourself if 
you want to take this gamble. You should know that even if all the 
mandatory and discretionary spending cuts are achieved, which is very, 
very unlikely, this budget will not be in balance until 2012, a long 
time from now, and between now and then this budget will accumulate 
more than $1 trillion of additional debt. And in voting for this 
resolution, keep in mind, you are voting to raise the ceiling on the 
national debt.
  So, what happens if we do not vote for this resolution? What happens 
if we vote it down tonight? Well, the default option is not really that 
bad. If you forego the tax cuts and you can also forego the spending 
cuts, you can put the budget back in balance by 2008. If you believe in 
balanced budget, if you think deficits are a menace, that is not a bad 
outcome. I suggest to you it is a lot better outcome than the budget 
resolution before us.
  Vote no on the budget resolution. Let us go back to the drawing 
board.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we always hear a lot about history whenever the 
Democrats come to the floor to talk about the budget, and it is in part 
because they do not want to talk about the future. They really just 
want to talk about history. They want to redefine it, they want to 
recapture it, they want to put it in new context constantly.
  How did we get here? Because of a war, because of a national 
emergency, and because of an economy that has been in recession, and we 
have to address all of those needs today. We have to have a plan for 
the future.
  Just like we commended our troops tonight, it is time to do our job. 
Yes, it is late. Yes, there are people who are asked to do much harder 
work than we are asked to do. But it is time to do our part in all of 
this. This budget is just the first step.
  I have heard people tonight on both sides of the aisle talk about all 
sorts of devastating things that might happen, devastating things that 
will happen, all sorts of policies that will flow from this budget that 
has not even passed yet, that has not even been conferenced with the 
Senate yet. We do not know where this process will end up, but I will 
guarantee you one thing: At the end of the day, no one will like it. No 
one will think it is a perfect budget. I can attest to that, because 
even though when I started this process I kind of liked what I wrote, 
by the end of it, I am not even sure I will recognize all of the 
details that are in this budget.
  Why is that? Because 435 people in this body and 100 in the other 
body write the budget. This is not the Nussle budget, it is not the 
President's budget, it is not the Blue Dogs' or the Republican Study 
Committee's or the moderates' or the conservatives'. It is nobody's 
budget unless we get it done.
  Why is it important for us to get it done? Because just last year we 
did not get it done. We passed one in the House, the other body did not 
pass a budget, and what happened? Gridlock, breakdown, 7 months of 
wrangling on the floor over 13 appropriations bills that only 
attributed one-third of all of the spending that Congress does and the 
Federal Government participates in. Seven months we spent over just 
one-third of the budget because of total budget breakdown.
  So we need to pass a budget. We need a conference report. We need to 
have a plan. And what should that plan say? Well, we believe it needs 
three things:
  Number one, it is not negotiable. We must protect America. That means 
strong national defense and homeland security that gives us the kind of 
security we need to have to ensure that we can protect freedom at home 
and freedom around the world.
  Number two, we must strengthen the economy and create jobs. A person 
without a job is not paying any taxes, and a person who is not paying 
any taxes, more than anything else, knows that they are not able to 
make ends meet. A person with a job, that is the most important thing 
we can do is to get people back to work.
  So, yes, we reduce taxes. Yes, we take on taxes, because they are too 
complicated, they are too high, they are too onerous, and it has gone 
on too long. We have got to do something about taxes. The President has 
put a plan on the table. Yes, we incorporate that plan in our budget, 
but it is a first

[[Page 6985]]

step to getting us back to work as a country.
  The third area is fiscal responsibility. Now, I have heard the 
gentleman from South Carolina, whom I greatly respect, say that we will 
not achieve these cuts. He is right. We are not going to achieve these 
cuts, because they are not cuts. How can you cut when you are only 
decreasing anticipated increases on the one hand, and, on the other 
hand, when it is waste?
  Why is it in America, for some reason in Washington, that whenever an 
agency or department or program wastes money, we rush in and give it 
more?
  GAO, our General Accounting Office, if you want to talk about waste, 
we hire great people who put together reams and volumes and all sorts 
of reports; defense acquisitions, financial management, FAA, Medicaid, 
Medicare, U.S. Postal Service, food stamp program, tax administration. 
It goes on and on and on in waste.
  We are paying dead people benefits under the Veterans Administration. 
We are sending dead people checks under Social Security. There are 
folks in the Lorton prison that are getting benefits under welfare 
still. And this is under a reformed welfare system.
  People will come up to me and say, ``Gosh, do you know what is really 
tough? We cannot find that waste. We are having a real tough time.'' 
And our friends on the other side are saying, ``You are cutting, 
throwing children in the street. People will be kicked out of nursing 
homes.''
  We are after this. This is what we are after. We want to find the 
waste, fraud and abuse within our system. Is it going to be hard? You 
bet, because for 5 years we have not been doing it.
  Five years ago we reached a balanced budget. Why? Because the 
Republicans took the majority. We put in a 7-year plan to balance the 
budget. We got there 4 years earlier than we said because the economy 
was growing, and we controlled spending. But when we got to balance, we 
stopped working on spending. We have got to get back to working on the 
spending side of the budget.
  So, this is where I end here tonight with a quote. It is kind of an 
interesting quote, apropos for tonight, I believe. The quote is, ``We 
shall, therefore, neither postpone our tax cut plans nor cut into 
essential national security programs. This administration is determined 
to protect America's security and survival, and we are also determined 
to step up its economic growth. I think we must do both.''
  President Kennedy said that in 1962. Let us do that job again 
tonight. Let us vote on the budget.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to highlight how the 
administration's budget leaves children and families behind. As we 
begin debate on the FY2004 Federal budget, we must remember that the 
biggest challenge facing American families is how to bridge their 
responsibilities between work and caring for their families.
  Our children and our families need our help now, more than ever, as 
this country is involved in a pre-emptive war with Iraq; this is 
especially true today for the families of our troops, national guard 
and reservists.
  Whether already deployed, or waiting for their orders, these brave 
men and women and their families are wondering how they'll make ends 
meet as they fulfill their military duty. How will they juggle their 
work and family responsibilities as well as their Nation's call?
  What we need is a budget that invests adequately in the programs and 
safety net that help all families balance work and family 
responsibilities.
  That's why it's bad policy that the Republican budget cuts many 
crucial programs that help parents and children.
  For instance, under the President's FY2004 plan after-school programs 
are cut by nearly $400 million and cuts necessary funding for the 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Under the President's 
budget, CHIP will be jeopardized by a plan to merge it with Medicaid 
programs through a new block grant.
  States will have unprecedented latitude to scale back coverage of 
necessary care for children, impose substantial cost-sharing 
requirements on low-income families, and put many children in a 
position to have no coverage for their health care.
  Child care services--which provide care so parents can work knowing 
their kids are safe--are also being cut. Only 1 in 7 children eligible 
for Federal child care assistance currently receive the funding they 
need. Under the President's plan a funding freeze will mean 
approximately 30,000 low-income children lose child care help in 2004.
  Programs such as Head Start will also suffer. Head Start, the 
premiere early childhood program for disadvantaged preschoolers would 
be dismantled and sent to the States, without the performance standards 
that are the core of the program's success.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget fails to provide the support that many of 
our working families depend on to give their children the best possible 
care. Families need this financial and emotional support to keep it all 
together. In fact, it seems that whatever we do in this fast-paced 
competitive society requires a balancing act.
  All families can use a little help, yet, families are told that this 
is their own ``personal problem''--although most everyone experiences 
it--and ``don't look to Washington for help, the Federal Government has 
other priorities'' such as a $400 billion defense budget to champion or 
a $675 billion tax break for the wealthiest few.
  What I propose is that we need a common vision of how to assist the 
struggling families of our country. A balancing act would recognize 
that there is no more important job than parenting.
  A balancing act would give parents the opportunity to stay at home 
for at least the first three months after a birth, or an adoption, 
without the loss of income or employment.
  A balancing act would see that when parents go back to work they 
would have access to quality child care.
  A balancing act would provide voluntary universal pre-school for 
every three- and four-year old.
  A balancing act would ensure that all children are cared for . . . 
not just during the school day, but after school as well. Instead of 
kids hanging out in the street with lesson in drugs, alcohol and early 
pregnancy, let's have safe places and enriching experiences available 
for our kids . . . places where they want to be . . . where they are 
safe and where they now they are cared about.
  A balancing act would address the sad fact that in too many families, 
breakfast is a casualty of the new economy and our fast paced life. 
When kids go to school on an empty stomach, they can't learn.
  And finally, a balancing act would extend benefits to part time 
workers. Whether an employee works 40 hours or less, their contribution 
to the company is just as great. All parents, and their families 
deserve to be protected against illness and loss of employment.
  Mr. Chairman, our first priority in this budget must be helping 
working families find a balance between their work and home 
responsibilities. I encourage my colleagues to remember children and 
families as we debate the FY2004 Budget.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, if Republicans are trying to send a message 
with this budget, the bright neon lights spell ``working families don't 
count.'' This is a budget of missed opportunities, misguided plans and 
misplaced priorities. This budget does not even account for the war, 
and reduces or eliminates benefits to the same brave soldiers that are 
waging that war as we speak.
  This budget is missing any serious recognition of the devastating 
economic downturn our Nation has suffered during this administration or 
of the severe budget crisis facing the states.
  The budget fails to invest in what matters most to American working 
families:
  It does nothing to rebuild or modernize our schools. It does nothing 
to improve our nation's aging transportation system.
  It does nothing to patch the holes in our homeland security 
framework.
  It does nothing to stem the relentless loss of jobs in our nation's 
manufacturing and industrial base.
  It does nothing to create new jobs.
  Small businesses form the entrepreneurial backbone of our Nation's 
economy. Most new jobs in this country come from businesses started 
only from a little seed money and a big dream. Yet, this budget cuts 
the very Small Business Administration programs that help keep the 
American Dream alive.
  This dream is being lived, at this very moment, by the hard working 
owners of countless Section 8A-small businesses. These businesses 
provide services to our government that are often less expensive and 
higher quality than many large corporations.
  We must oppose a budget that bundles small business contracts 
together into larger contracts that only multinational and large 
corporations will be able to bid on.
  This budget also does nothing to solve our Nation's crippling health 
care crisis, which means high cost and little coverage to working 
families. It also means a consistent 15 percent

[[Page 6986]]

yearly cost increase to employers who are becoming less willing to pay 
for their workers' health care.
  This budget leaves behind the $9 billion in funding that President 
Bush promised for education. This budget leaves behind 40 percent of 
the funding for after school programs, 26 percent of the funding to 
migrant education programs, 43 percent of the funding for high school 
equivalency programs, 13 percent of early education programs, and the 
list goes on.
  I wish my Republican colleagues understood that it is neither apathy 
nor laziness that makes people poor and creates under-performing 
schools. Even where the budget seeks new funds for neglected 
priorities, the approach to solving the problem is deeply flawed and 
the conditions are unfair and counterproductive.
  During a time of corporate scandals, Republicans choose instead to go 
after labor unions. The Department of Labor is even increasing its 
funding to audit, investigate, and prosecute labor unions. It increased 
its funding by closing down the United States Employment Service.
  During a time of state budget shortfalls that are forcing deep cuts 
to education, this budget instead redirects critical education funding 
to private school vouchers so that he can begin to privatize public 
education.
  During a time of soaring energy prices, the Republican budget freezes 
funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, so our 
seniors can bake in the summer and freeze in the winter.
  Seniors will be forced to leave Medicare to get a prescription drug 
care benefit, only to be covered by HMOs that will provide less care 
for more money.
  Our seniors are concerned that this budget puts the long-term 
solvency of social security in serious jeopardy.
  This budget will have a record of $1.8 million deficit over the next 
10 years. This reckless deficit must be paid off, but how? Republicans 
hope to indebt our Nation to the point where we have no choice but to 
privatize Social Security. We must strengthen Social Security--not 
privatize it!
  The current state of our economy demands investments to help people, 
but Republicans are instead squandering the funds on tax cuts. The 
resources that the budget seeks fall well short of basic needs--a 
direct result of the President's obsession with butchering the tax code 
and wringing from it trillions in tax breaks for the wealthiest. Tax 
breaks that are breaking the backs of our State budgets. According to 
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the President tucked 11 tax 
cut proposals in his budget that would have disastrous effects on State 
budgets. Talk about kicking someone when they are down!
  The tax cuts will cost the States $64 billion in revenues over the 
next 10 years. Those are $64 billion dollars that would have funded our 
police and funded our schools. Eleven States have cut their spending on 
K-12 education, delaying much-needed renovation and construction, 
eliminating preschool and after-school programs and, in some places, 
cutting days from the school week. Nineteen States have cut higher 
education spending, forcing cancellation of classes and tuition hikes.
  Eighteen States have cut their welfare programs, even though the 
rolls are rising for the first time since passage of the 1966 welfare 
reform law. The number of States with waiting lists for child care 
assistance has grown, and the waits are getting longer. In seven 
States, eligibility for child care aid has been tightened 
significantly, and five States have hiked parent fees.
  Twelve States are cutting Medicaid. At least 1 million people, 
largely in working poor families, will lose their health care coverage 
if these cuts are fully implemented. Another 1 million are experiencing 
cuts in coverage and benefits.
  Many States have implemented or are considering tax increases to 
raise revenues. Among the 34 governors who have submitted 2004 budgets, 
16--Republicans and Democrats--have called for increases in taxes and 
fees. Three are proposing personal income tax hikes, seven recommend 
sales tax increases or an end to sales tax exemptions, five propose 
corporate tax hikes and three are considering various other fees and 
levies. Ironically, these State tax hikes, many of which will hit low- 
and moderate-income residents, may offset any Federal cuts.
  This budget and the tax cuts are clear examples of how Republicans 
want to shift the tax burden of our Nation from the rich to the working 
class.
  Around this time last year, I led a successful effort to restore food 
stamp benefits to legal permanent residents. Although the President 
signed the law, this budget does not fund our commitment to keeping all 
lawful residents of our Nation fed. We cannot approve monumental 
reforms that bring hope to people's hearts and then coldly deny the 
funding for these very same programs.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget. It's a budget that sends 
its message--in bright neon lights--``real people don't matter.''
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
budget resolution, which undermines our long-term fiscal health and 
severely hampers our ability to meet critical domestic needs and 
foreign responsibilities.
  I stand united with the President and my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle in our commitment to win the war against Iraq and take all 
necessary steps to defeat terrorism and preserve national security both 
at home and abroad. However, despite the many new security and economic 
challenges confronting us, the war and our homeland protection efforts 
should not, and need not, shortchange our domestic priorities. We can 
win the war against Iraq and terrorism without raiding Social Security 
and Medicare and without increasing the national debt. Yet, this 
Republican budget resolution would accomplish just the opposite.
  Two years ago, the administration and Congress were looking 
covetously at a staggering $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus through 
2010. At the time, Congress was continually reassured by the 
administration that we could afford an enormous tax cut, ensure the 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare, pay down the national debt, 
fund our domestic priorities and still have a large reserve fund for 
unanticipated emergencies. Like many of my colleagues, I cautioned the 
administration at the time that its budget and enormous tax cut were 
based on unrealistic surplus projections that would never materialize.
  Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirmed 
that in less than 2 years the 10-year projected surplus has been 
erased. While portions of this decline are a result of our efforts to 
defeat terrorism and preserve national security both at home and 
abroad, the depletion of the surplus to date was largely caused by the 
fiscally irresponsible policies of 2001. The additional $1.3 trillion 
in tax cuts, much of which are due to excluding dividends from 
taxation, that the administration and the Republican leadership propose 
would only worsen our current situation and lead us further down the 
path of mounting deficits and escalating public debt.
  To pay for the additional tax cuts, the Republican's budget 
resolution would raid the entire $2.2 trillion Social Security trust 
fund to cover deficits in the rest of the Federal budget over the next 
10 years. Moreover, the projections used to frame this budget are 
overly optimistic. They do not include the cost of the administration's 
plan to permanently extend several expiring tax cuts, which would add 
$100 billion to the deficit between 2004 and 2013. In addition, this 
budget omits the cost of extending relief from the selling individual 
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) beyond 2005. Without AMT relief, the 
number of taxpayers subject to it will soar from 2 million today to 
over 43 million by 2013. The projections also leave out an assessment 
of the enormous cost of the current war and the subsequent costs of 
occupation, which could last for a number of years.
  The disappearance of the 10-year surplus compels us to consider not 
just a 1-year but also a long-term budget plan. Congress and the 
American people have the right to know how the Republican Leadership 
proposes to restore fiscal discipline while enacting additional multi-
year tax cuts, boosting spending for the military, and meeting 
commitments to a growing number of retirees. Furthermore, I find it 
incredibly irresponsible that the majority continues to pursue large 
tax cuts while shortchanging important domestic priorities. Congress 
should devise budgetary rules that make tax cuts contingent on the 
realization of specified targets for the budget surplus and the Federal 
debt. Unfortunately, this budget fails on all those accounts.
  Moreover, this budget would cut domestic appropriations by $244 
billion over 10 years below the amount needed to maintain services at 
the 2003 level. Remarkably, the funding levels in this budget are 
$115.3 billion lower than the level in the President's budget, which 
many Members--on both sides of the aisle--thought was too low. Further, 
it would require cuts of $265 billion over 10 years in programs such as 
Medicaid, veterans' benefits, student loans, housing assistance and 
pensions and benefits for Federal employee. This budget also fails to 
provide funds for necessary infrastructure improvements or help hard-
pressed states and localities. Meanwhile, it provides an inadequate 
prescription drug benefit, and underfunds other key priorities without 
reaching balance until 2012.
  Instead, I plan to support the Democratic alternative that would 
eliminate the unfair, costly

[[Page 6987]]

tax cuts for the rich, and would provide targeted tax rebates to 
working families, as well as additional funding for expanded 
unemployment benefits for laid off workers, assistance for states and 
localities, and necessary infrastructure projects. It would also 
provide greater funding for Medicare prescription drugs, education, 
housing, homeland security and other vital domestic programs. This 
alternative would provide an immediate boost to the economy and create 
thousands of jobs, without aggravating our long-term deficits.
  The need to respond to new short-term needs is no excuse for ignoring 
the long-term problems we already have. Ultimately, deficits do matter. 
It is time that we all take the deteriorating budget outlook seriously. 
We need to ensure that the burden of today's fiscal policies is not 
placed on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. This is a 
matter of fiscal stewardship and generational responsibility, and we 
must address it without delay.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided budget and to develop 
one that will ensure security at home and abroad, without dramatically 
increasing our debt, borrowing against Social Security and Medicare, or 
abandoning our commitments to children, workers, senior citizens and 
all Americans.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, today we are brought to the floor of this 
House as America's young men and women are at war in Iraq. The American 
people expect their elected representatives to address how much this 
war will cost and how much securing our hometowns will cost in our 
continuing war against terrorism as well. Instead, the Bush 
administration is asking this Congress to treat as its highest budget 
priority the lifting of that very onerous burden felt by the wealthiest 
of Americans--the double taxation of dividends. We all know what a huge 
burden double taxation of dividends imposes on the wealthiest 
Americans. Apparently Republican Party leaders in Washington feel that 
failing to lift this burden from the shoulders of the rich would be too 
great a sacrifice, even in wartime. For them, lifting the burden of 
double taxation of dividends is:
  More important than paying for a war in Iraq and the subsequent 
rebuilding of Iraq.
  More important than paying for security at our ports, airports, and 
nuclear power plants; and
  More important than providing affordable health care and medicine to 
our grandparents.
  Last night, President Bush officially created a whole new group of 
250,000 war veterans--yet he does not even have enough money in his 
budget to take care of this country's obligations to veterans of the 
first Persian Gulf War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, or World War 
II.
  Never before has a President cut taxes in the face of war. According 
to the New York Times, the Civil War gave birth to an estate tax and 
World War II expanded the income tax. But during the war in Iraq the 
Bush administration plans to cut taxes by a total of nearly $2 trillion 
over the next 10 years.
  This tax cut for the rich is a fiscal MOAB [Mother of All Bombs], 
pointed right at the heart of the Federal budget.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it seems that each year I've been in 
Congress, the Republican budget proposal is further and further removed 
from the needs and expressed wishes of the American public. This year 
follows that disturbing trend. Fundamental priorities and long-term 
fiscal stability are sacrificed for the sake of continued tax cuts.
  This budget puts into place a framework that will fail to meet our 
needs. It ignores funding requirements for our operations overseas, our 
actions in Iraq and a commitment to rebuild and stabilize Afghanistan. 
Worst of all it ignores real problems here at home. There is no 
meaningful assistance for the 47 states, including mine, that are in 
serious financial difficulty, to say nothing of the unmet needs for 
transportation, environmental cleanup and ``hometown'' security.
  We must look at this current budget as an opportunity, despite the 
fact that we are now at war and our economy continues to stumble. We 
have a choice whether we want deficits as far as the eye can see. We 
have a choice whether we want to provide tax cuts to the detriment of 
education, healthcare and the environment. The Democratic budget 
alternatives we are voting on today are far better in addressing these 
choices.
  The Democratic budget alternatives:
  Invest in our communities, which creates jobs, provides needed 
infrastructure improvements for transportation and water, and cleans up 
the environment;
  Help state and local governments cope with their current budget 
crises and provides money for ``hometown'' security and the first 
responders that protect our communities;
  Provide increased funding for discretionary healthcare programs and 
education, reducing classroom sizes and providing advanced teacher 
training--proposals President Bush promised but the Republicans refuse 
to fund; and
  Offer tax cuts and reforms that are much more affordable and 
equitable. They repeal the marriage penalty, provide immediate and 
permanent estate tax relief that increases the family exclusion level 
to $6 million, and accelerate the child tax credit to $800 per child. 
Other tax cuts would be deferred if the budget remains in deficit 
because of the war in Iraq or other factors.
  My constituents and the American people understand that these are 
extraordinary times. They are willing to make the sacrifices necessary 
to protect our communities, to educate our children, and to clean our 
environment. We have an opportunity to help families become safer, 
healthier, and more economically secure. The Democratic budget 
alternatives seize this opportunity.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my concern about the budget 
resolution before use today. As a Member of the House Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, I am especially concerned about the amount of funding 
included in the budget resolution for our Nation's veterans.
  This Republican budget is woefully short of what is needed, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the Democratic budget alternative. Our 
alternative provides $32 billion more than the Republican budget over 
the next 10 years for veterans. This means providing $17 billion more 
for veterans' health care and rejecting the Republican cut of $15 
billion for mandatory veterans' programs, programs like service-
connected disability compensation, pensions, survivors' benefits, 
vocational rehabilitation, educational and burial benefits. I cannot 
imagine even thinking about cuts to compensation for our disabled 
veterans!
  The Democratic budget is supported by the authors of the Independent 
Budget, a budget created by veterans' service organizations who are on 
the front lines and in a position to know exactly what is needed. They 
call the Democratic alternative ``a solid step forward in meeting the 
very real needs of veterans''.
  This morning I attended the joint Senate and House VA Committee 
hearing, where we heard views on the budget from the Vietnam Veterans 
of America, the American Ex-Prisoners of War, the Military Officers 
Association of American, and AMVETS. I must report that for much of the 
hearing, there were only two Members present to receive the veterans 
testimony.
  On the day following the beginning of the war with Iraq, it is hard 
to believe that most of the Members of the VA Committee were too busy 
to attend this hearing about funding for our veterans' programs. 
Perhaps our Republican colleagues were reworking their original budget 
resolution, working to respond to the outcries from veterans and the 
public about their original budget resolution. But the final result 
before us today is still woefully inadequate.
  Mr. Chairman, as we send our young men and women to war in Iraq, 
certain to result in disability for some young Americans, we 
unfortunately are simultaneously sending the message that Congress is 
not concerned about their future as veterans! This is unconscionable.
  Why does the Republican budget proposal fail to fund veterans 
programs at the level recommended by the Independent Budget? I am sad 
that it is largely because Congress is poised to give a tax break to 
the wealthiest Americans.
  Who deserves to receive the benefits of the national treasury--
America's disabled veterans or America's millionaires?
  I urge my colleagues to reject this budget resolution.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I find it deeply troubling that as this 
country prepares for war and unites in support for our troops, the 
House Republicans would push forward a deeply partisan, environmentally 
destructive budget, hoping that a nation focused on war abroad will not 
notice this domestic attack.
  This outrageous budget cuts more from crucial environmental programs 
than even the President's proposals. Without bothering to explain where 
these cuts will come from, House Republicans slashed more than 10 
percent for the 2004 environmental funding, over 3 billion dollars. 
Incredibly, these cuts continue through the next ten years, providing 
for less than minimally required to maintain the existing levels of 
enforcement and environmental protections Americans rely on to protect 
our health and natural world.
  Perhaps most deplorably, this proposed budget dictates our nation's 
environmental policy for the near future. It is a back-door way to open 
one of America's most precious wilderness areas to oil drilling. My 
Republican

[[Page 6988]]

colleagues claim that this budget is `silent' about oil drilling in the 
Arctic. If this budget is silent, it is certainly not neutral. The $1.1 
billion cut over 10 years will all but force the federal government to 
use income from oil drilling in ANWR to reconcile deep funding cuts to 
balance their budget.
  While Secretary Norton may think that the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge is ``an area of flat, white nothingness,'' my constituents 
understand that the Refuge is an unique, irreplaceable coastal plain 
and home to more than 100 specifes of wildlife and birds whose habitat 
would be undeniably devastated by this reckless drilling. The Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge is a gem of the national wildlife system, 
created over one hundred years ago by Teddy Roosevelt, and the area of 
proposed drilling, Area 1002, is the ecological heart of the refuge.
  Slipping ANWR ``silently'' into this budget is dishonorable procedure 
and dangerous environmental policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
handout to big oil companies and to support the Spratt substitute, 
which will protect an invaluable American treasure.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, You can tell a lot about a family by 
looking at their checkbook. The same is true of our nation. This budget 
reflects our priorities by investing in Defense, Homeland Security, the 
economy, and programs supporting our most vulnerable populations. The 
number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect 
American lives.
  Under this budget, our military men and women will have the best and 
most modern equipment, better pay, better housing, and better Veterans 
Benefits--$62 billion dollars. That's $4 billion more than the previous 
year.
  In my district of Jacksonville, the USS John F. Kennedy is undergoing 
an extensive maintenance rehabilitation period. There are many other 
aging ships within our fleet that require this type of depot level 
maintenance. This budget provides $5.3 billion for intermediation and 
depot level ship maintenance--an additional $500 million over last 
year's levels. This budget is a responsible investment in Jacksonville 
as a national security asset.
  Included in the 2004 Military Construction request is $115.7 million 
for the acquisition of Blount Island. The Marines operate their 
maritime pre-positioning force from this location. Sixteen ships loaded 
with a brigade's worth of equipment from light armored vehicles to the 
Meals Ready to Eat are maintained on a routine basis at this location. 
The Maritime Pre-positioning Force floats in certain geographical 
locations around the world to reduce time required to deploy Marine 
forces. Currently 11 of these 16 ships have off-loaded their 
Jacksonville maintained equipment in Kuwait for the Marines use in the 
liberation of Iraq.
  Under this budget, the federal government is on a 9-year-track toward 
balance and we remove tax code obstacles that stand in the way of 
growing our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this budget resolution, not just 
because it protects Americans, not just because it restrains spending, 
not just because it targets waste, fraud, and abuse, not just because 
it removes barriers to economic growth . . .
  Vote for it because somewhere in my hometown of Jacksonville, there's 
a family that will sit around their kitchen table tonight, and they 
will talk about how much money is in the checking account and they will 
talk about when their bills are due.
  They are making responsible decisions and expect nothing less from 
us.
  This budget blueprint will protect that family, it will let that 
family keep a little more money to pay a bill, buy new clothes, or save 
for their children's education.
  Vote for this budget because it's what's right for America.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to 
commend the House Budget Committee and Chairman Nussle's leadership in 
crafting a Budget Resolution that epitomizes fiscal discipline and 
brings important tax relief and job creation to hard working American 
families. This Resolution will also protect Americans both here and 
abroad as we continue to face the challenges of the War on Terrorism.
  It is too common in this chamber that Members talk about reducing 
spending, creating jobs, protecting Americans and providing common 
sense tax relief without a willingness to make the important changes. 
Unfortunately, rhetoric does not produce results.
  This Budget Resolution symbolizes a strong commitment to make the 
needed reforms in spending that this body has been promising. This 
resolution is fiscally responsible and outlines a plan to balance the 
budget in nine years, while bringing important tax relief to American 
families.
  This Resolution calls for a one percent reduction in growth, except 
for social security, defense, Medicare and Veterans and homeland 
security funding. By no means is this approach radical. This Budget 
Resolution allocates $200 billion over the next 10 years for Medicare 
with an additional $400 billion for Medicare modernization and 
prescription drug coverage. Veterans spending will increase by $844 
million in Fiscal Year 2004. Education, Defense, Homeland Security and 
many other agencies will receive significant increases under this plan.
  A one percent reduction in growth will allow for the elimination of 
waste, fraud and inefficiencies that consistently plagues federal 
spending. Locating this abuse is no great challenge for most agency 
budgets and eliminating it should be our obligation.
  The Budget Resolution also provides for sound growth policy that will 
stimulate our economy, provide jobs to Americans and reduce the tax 
burden on American families. For example, the budget resolution assumes 
the 2001 tax cuts are made permanent and accommodates the entire growth 
plan proposed by President Bush.
  President Bush's growth plan is vital to stimulating our weak economy 
and creating jobs for Americans. This includes the permanent 
elimination of the marriage penalty tax, the death tax and the double 
taxation of dividends.
  The elimination of the double taxation of dividends, alone, will 
provide an average of 500,000 jobs a year and will greatly help the 52 
percent of Americans--half of which are seniors--that are invested in 
the stock market.
  The President's Growth Plan will also provide job opportunities to 
unemployed Americans throughout the nation. In Florida, alone, 248,500 
jobs will be created over the next four years as a direct result to the 
policies of President Bush's Growth Plan.
  Small businesses--the foundation of America's economy--would also 
receive important tax savings under President's Growth Package. In 
fact, 23 million small businesses will receive tax cuts averaging 
$2,042 under this plan.
  Unfortunately, the only plans the Democrats are offering would spend 
irresponsibly and raise taxes. This is not only an injustice to the 
American economy, but a great injustice to American families that rely 
on tax relief during rough economic times.
  I came to Congress promising my constituents that I would support tax 
relief and the concept of fiscal discipline. There is no piece of 
legislation that outlines a plan that accurately adheres to these 
principles better than the Budget Resolution we have before us.
  Todays vote will clearly indicate who restrains spending and provides 
tax relief and who only talks about it. I look forward to sending a 
clear message to America that the days of rhetoric are over--we are 
going to control spending, provide tax relief to hard-working families 
and open the door to employment opportunities for millions of 
Americans.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the Majority's fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution because this 
resolution is unrealistic in reflecting the spending realities that our 
nation will face. Never in the history of our country has a Congress or 
a President dared to reward the wealthiest at a time of recession and 
war while asking the rest of America for painful sacrifice. If you 
believe seniors, veterans, and children are the problem, then the 
Majority has a budget solution for you. This shameful plan cuts funding 
for nearly every federal program, while at the same time making way for 
excessive tax cuts that will explode the deficit further and do nothing 
to help our economy.
  This Budget Resolution contains deep and widespread cuts in every 
basic domestic program except Social Security and military retirement. 
The budget would require congressional committees to cut mandatory 
programs by $470 billion over the next ten years. The cuts are 
reminiscent of those proposed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 
1995 and included in the Contract with America budget legislation that 
former President Clinton vetoed that year.
  While requiring deep cuts in domestic programs, the budget makes room 
for most for the President's large tax-cut package, including $1.4 
trillion in tax cuts through 2013. The tax cuts in the ``growth'' 
package alone would cost $725 billion over ten years and would, 
according to the Tax Policy Center, result in tax reductions averaging 
$90,000 each in 2003 for those Americans who have incomes of more than 
$1 million. Unfortunately, 35 percent of New Mexico taxpayers would get 
no tax cut at all under the Bush plan, and 53 percent of New Mexico 
taxpayers would get a cut of less than $100.
  Mr. Chairman, according to official projections by the Congressional 
Budget Office, budget deficits will turn to surpluses by 2008 if 
Congress refrains from enacting any further

[[Page 6989]]

tax cuts or program increases, with the budget running a net surplus of 
$0.6 trillion over the period from 2003 through 2013. As is widely 
recognized, however, these projections are too optimistic: they do not 
include the large and inevitable cost of providing relief from the 
exploding scope of the Alternative Minimum Tax; they include no 
allowance for a war with Iraq; and they assume that various 
``temporary'' tax credits will expire on schedule even though Congress 
nearly always extends them. Reflecting the cost of these three omitted 
items adds approximately $1 trillion in deficits over ten years.
  The most reprehensible component of the House budget, as with its 
Senate counterpart, is that as the United States has begun ``Operation 
Iraqi Freedom'' neither measure sets aside one penny for this war with 
Iraq. The Bush administration has resolutely refused to offer cost 
estimates of war or early reconstruction despite requests from those on 
both sides of the aisle. Leaders in both parties have expressed 
increasing frustration that the potential bill for war and rebuilding 
Iraq still remain a mystery.
  Mr. Chairman, with nearly a quarter of a million young Americans 
crossing the Iraqi border this House is on the verge of approving a 
nightmare budget that sets aside no money for this effort. Instead of 
sticking our heads in the budgetary sand and ignoring the war's price 
tag, we need to be honest with American taxpayers and ourselves. To 
pass a budget plan including large tax cuts without attempting even to 
estimate the war and postwar reconstruction costs is breathtakingly 
irresponsible.
  I oppose the Majority's Budget Resolution because: It Fails to 
Promote Economic Growth--Instead of Creating Both Short-Term & Long-
Term Economic Growth.
  It Fails to Provide a Meaningful Prescription Drug Plan--Instead of 
Investing in An Affordable Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, 
Available to All Seniors.
  It Embraces Fiscally Irresponsible Tax Cuts Totaling $1.35 Trillion--
Instead of Embracing Responsible Budgeting.
  It Makes Substantial Cuts to National Priorities--like Education and 
Health Care--Instead of Funding Key National Priorities like the 
``Leave No Child Behind Act''.
  It Cuts Veterans' Benefits and Freezes Homeland Security Funding--
Instead of Providing For Our Veterans and Giving Our First Responders 
the Tools they Need to Protect Our Homeland.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier we should be honest with 
the American taxpayers and with ourselves that the responsible thing to 
do is not pass this budget until we have the war supplemental figures 
before us and can reach consensus on other key federal programs.
  Mr. STARK. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 975. This 
bankruptcy bill is touted as reform. But, it is actually a wolf in 
sheep's clothing intended to allow credit card companies and other 
lenders to gouge consumers when they are most vulnerable.
  Republicans are giving this gift to the big credit card companies in 
the midst of this difficult recession, making it harder for working 
families to seek shelter from the common financial emergency of a lost 
job or lack of health coverage. In fact, 90% of all bankruptcies are 
filed for these very reasons. It's hard to see the abuse in these real 
instances of need, especially when many Americans live paycheck to 
paycheck.
  Yet, this Republican legislation makes it more difficult for those 
Americans forced into bankruptcy--a disproportionate number whom are 
women and minorities--to seek this protection. In fact, the bill 
requires the debtor in some cases to have to take on big corporate 
lenders in court to prove they are worthy of bankruptcy, forcing them 
to bear legal expenses they can't afford. In addition, this bill also 
allows creditors to threaten debtors with costly litigation that will 
in turn force many families to needlessly give up their legal rights.
  In their continuing compassion, the Republicans have crafted this so-
called reform so that a parent seeking to collect child support from an 
estranged spouse that's declared bankruptcy will have to fight it out 
with creditors to receive payment. Meanwhile, this bill makes it easier 
for those seeking bankruptcy protection to lose their homes or be 
evicted by their landlords. Yet, those with million dollar mansions 
will be able to keep their homes even while seeking the same bankruptcy 
protection. Nothing like a fair shake for America's working families.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, with all of the perks they've awarded to the 
big credit card companies, Republicans have done nothing to ensure that 
they are held accountable. There is nothing in this bill that stops the 
abusive, predatory lending that lands too many Americans in bankruptcy 
in the first place.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this anti consumer bill. Now is not 
the time to turn the tables on America's working families. Vote no on 
H.R. 975.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the lengths to which my Republican 
colleagues will go to in order to help out their fat-cat buddies will 
never cease to amaze me. We are considering a budget resolution today 
that is so bad and so draconian that the Republican leadership is 
having trouble convincing some of their own rank and file to support 
it.
  I am outraged, Mr. Chairman, absolutely outraged that at a time when 
this nation is at war, my Republican colleagues are attempting to cut 
funding for veterans. Have they no shame? Mr. Speaker, these men and 
women were willing to risk their lives for this nation and many lost 
limbs in the process. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
would repay these most patriotic of Americans by slashing $15 billion 
from the Veteran's Administration budget over the next 10 years. Of 
course, since 96 percent of the VA's discretionary budget goes to pay 
for the healthcare of those who served this Nation, this means that we 
are reducing enrollment, reducing hospital days of care and reducing 
nursing staff. This is how the Republican leadership gives their thanks 
to our veterans.
  At recent hearings, I expressed skepticism about the President's 
``budget-neutral'' proposal to convert Medicaid to a block grant. Not 
only would this proposal leave States at risk if Medicaid costs rose, 
but I warned that it was a prelude to Congressional cuts in the 
program. The ink was not even dry on the President's proposal before 
the House Republicans are now requiring $100 billion cut in the 
program. As State budgets are being squeezed, the notion of reducing 
Federal spending on Medicaid is an astonishingly bad idea.
  Although our Republican colleagues appear to have backed off their 
threat to slash Medicare to the bone, no one should be mistaken that 
this is the last we will hear of it. For years, Republicans have sought 
to do away with Medicare and Social Security--most recently under the 
guise of privatization. Medicare and Social Security remain primary 
targets for Republican ideologues and tax-cutters, and we must remain 
ever vigilant to protect these vital programs.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget also fails to protect the environment. In 
fact, it cuts FY 04 funding by more than 10 percent. And over the next 
10 years, it slashes environmental spending by more than 11 percent. 
What does this mean? Well, it could mean cuts for clean water, which is 
a logical choice since the Bush Administration seems hell bent on 
dismantling the Clean Water Act and selling off our rivers to 
hydroelectric companies. It likely means cuts for brownfields 
redevelopment. Of course, my Republican colleagues try to soften this 
blow by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, which 
they say will increase federal receipts by $2.1 billion over the next 
10 years. I am not certain how my friends on the other side of the 
aisle intend to do this, since some cooler heads in the Senate stripped 
the ANWR provision out of their budget yesterday.
  Just two years ago, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left 
Behind Act, which was lauded by Democrats and Republicans alike. At the 
time that the bill was signed, the President and Congressional 
Republicans made a commitment to American families and their children 
that the programs in that bill would be funded at proper levels so that 
our public schools would not be placed in financial straight jackets. 
For two years that promise has gone unfulfilled, and this budget not 
only continues that dangerous trend, but actually cuts education 
funding. Mr. Speaker, Congressional Republicans have gone even further 
in their cuts than the President did in his budget, slashing spending 
by 8 percent. Let me give you a specific, Mr. Speaker. If this budget 
passes, more than 22,000 kids in my home state of Michigan will quite 
literally be left out in the cold. These kids will be left without any 
after-school services. Let me ask, is this what compassionate 
conservatism is all about?
  Mr. Chairman, the cuts don't stop there. This sham of a budget 
drastically cuts our agriculture programs. Our farmers are the 
lifeblood of this great Nation. How do we show them our support? Well, 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle thank our farmers by 
slashing agriculture programs by $763 million in FY 04. What this means 
in real terms is that conservation, nutrition, rural development and 
producer payment programs would be cut by more than 25 percent over 
their authorized amounts. These draconian cuts are neither justified 
nor sustainable. Again, that is not the end of the agriculture cuts. 
The Republican budget requires that the Agriculture Committee cut 
nearly $20 billion in direct spending over the next 10 years. This 
means more cuts to our family farmers by slashing funding to farm

[[Page 6990]]

loan programs, conservation programs, rural development, forestry and 
research.
  All of this leads to a very logical question, Mr. Speaker: why are my 
Republican colleagues doing this? Why are they gutting programs that 
help America's working families? Well, Mr. Speaker, they are doing this 
to accommodate more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Yes, the 
goal of this budget is to allow the President to push through more of 
his irresponsible tax cuts. Make no mistake: these tax cuts will not 
stimulate the economy and will not help middle class Americans. In 
fact, in my home state of Michigan, about 50 percent of taxpayers would 
get less than $100 under the President's plan, and 30 percent would get 
no tax cut at all. Of course, this all leaves open the possibility that 
local communities will have to raise taxes because my Republican 
colleagues expect them to bear the burden of homeland security costs. 
This rascality is just another ploy for my Republican colleagues to 
help out their fat-cat corporate friends and leave the American people 
out in the cold.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention the cost of 
this current war with Iraq. We don't know how much the war will cost, 
and we have no idea how much it will cost to rebuild Iraq after the 
war. The Republican budget does not include one penny to pay for our 
troops currently overseas or the costs of reconstructing Iraq. Mr. 
Speaker, is this really the time to be centering the entire budget 
around tax cuts? I think not. This is a sham and an outrage.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget provides members with a 
reasonable and responsible alternative and I would strongly encourage 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Our budget is 
centered around a stimulus plan that provides both long term and short 
term economic growth--creating 1 million new jobs this year alone. The 
Democratic budget is responsible, balancing the budget by 2010 without 
unrealistic spending cuts. The Democratic budget gives schools the 
funding they need to implement No Child Left Behind, and more 
importantly, the funding they need to properly prepare our kids for the 
future. The Democratic budget provides $32 billion over the next 10 
years for Veterans healthcare. Mr. Speaker, making sure those who were 
willing to give their lives for this country are taken care of needs to 
be a priority. It is, quite simply, the right thing to do. At this time 
of war, the Democratic budget adequately invests in Homeland Security 
by providing $32 billion more than Republicans over the next 10 years--
ensuring $3.5 billion in desperately needed new money for first 
responders. The Democratic budget also provides an adequate 
prescription drug benefit so our senior citizens don't have to choose 
between groceries and filling a prescription.
  I would ask my colleagues, all of my colleagues, to reject the 
Republican budget and support the Democratic substitute.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, as we are now unfortunately engaged in 
an assault on Iraq, I pray for the safety of our American servicemen 
and women engaged in that military campaign and hope for their safe 
return. As we debate this budget resolution to fund programs for the 
defense and investment in our country I am very troubled by the harmful 
consequences for the budget cuts called for in this document.
  This budget resolution partially reflects our current priority to 
protect the men and women of our fighting forces. It is only a partial 
measure because we need to see the supplemental appropriations request 
before we really know what the defense budget is. Looking beyond 
defense, this resolution is a travesty to the Americans who live within 
these borders.
  High priority programs like Medicaid, education, veterans benefits, 
federal employee pension benefits, prescription drug benefits, law 
enforcement, food stamps are targeted under this budget resolution.
  The majority says the cut backs total represent a 1 percent across-
the-board cut. But because the Republican budget mirrors the 
President's request for defense, they impose a 2.9 percent cut on 
nondefense spending.
  This is a guns and caviar budget.
  The budget resolution says these cuts will come from eliminating 
waste, fraud and abuse. That's hogwash; it cannot be found. The 
resolution instructs the authorizing Committees to do the dirty work. 
The Committees will be asked to pony up $470 billion in direct spending 
program cuts over 10 years. When measured against a 10-year mandatory 
spending projection of $15.6 trillion that amounts to a 3 percent cut.
  The only way to accommodate a cut of this magnitude is to cut benefit 
levels or restrict eligibility for benefits for human service programs 
that service our children, elderly, veterans, farmers, federal workers 
and more.
  This budget could push nearly half a million poor children out of 
child nutrition programs.
  In the field of health care, the Republican budget does not provide 
any significant funding for a Medicare Prescription Drug Program--only 
$28 billion. With that, you might be able to provide every senior with 
a bottle or two of aspirin each year.
  The Resolution doesn't tell Congress to specifically cut funding for 
Medicare and Medicaid in order to provide a prescription drug program. 
It tells the Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce Committees to 
do the dirty work. So if the Republicans want to deliver on their 
promise of a $400 billion prescription drug program, the two committees 
will have to find a combined total of $372 billion in program cuts.
  Under this budget resolution seniors lose out in two ways. They get 
little or no prescription drug benefit and they will see their coverage 
under Medicare and Medicaid reduced. They will lose out because here 
are the options available for getting to the numbers called for in the 
Republican budget resolution:
  Cut physician reimbursement by a third, saving $215 billion. If we go 
that route, it will only encourage doctors to stop seeing Medicare and 
Medicaid patients.
  Eliminate hospital payments for medical education and cost of 
uncompensated care, saving $200 billion. That will be devastating to 
urban hospitals in Detroit and other inner cities, which are on the 
brink of financial collapse as it is.
  Terminate home health benefits under Medicare. That will yield $207 
billion. Or do away with skilled nursing home benefits . . . that will 
save $187 billion.
  We can save $51 billion by taking health care services away from 5.3 
million low income kids under the State Children Health Insurance 
Program.
  This is a resolution that says to the wealthy, you don't have to pay 
the cost of this war against Iraq. We'll give the bill to seniors, 
children, disabled Americans, the sick, the hungry and to generations 
not yet born. There is no sacrifice being asked of those who can afford 
it the most. Make no mistake about it. The $382 billion dividend tax 
cut will do nothing to stimulate the economy. It most benefits those 
who financially benefit the most in our society.
  And that's not just my view. It's a view point shared by the Disabled 
American Veterans. Ed Heath, National Commander of the DAV, says--and I 
quote--``Cutting already under funded veterans' programs to offset the 
costs of tax cuts is undefensible and callous.''
  I have been critical of the President's budget and foreign policies. 
Why, after all, are we conducting a war that we are not willing to pay 
for. The President is sending a message that we can extend our global 
military reach without any sacrifice and still afford a tax cut that 
will largely benefit the top one percent of Americans. This budget 
document echoes what the Administration has been saying: ``We can have 
it all.''
  Well, we can't have it all if it means breaking a contract with 
federal workers by cutting their pension health benefits;
  if it means breaking the contract that we have with our seniors to 
cut back on Medicaid and Medicare health coverage;
  if it means reneging on a promise to provide seniors with a 
meaningful prescription drug benefit;
  if it turns our back on disability benefits and health care for our 
veterans;
  if it means denying opportunities to our children by cutting back on 
health programs, Head Start, and Pell Grants.
  This budget resolution is nothing but a series of broken promises. 
All the alternatives being considered today represent a better way, and 
I am going to support them. With an America at war, we need to act with 
some fiscally responsibility. The Republican budget does not meet that 
test. This budget benefits the investment class with a dividend tax cut 
at the expense of programs that serve everyday Americans. It divides us 
as a country and worsens our economic position.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very reluctant support of H. 
Con. Res. 95 because I believe that the cuts contained in the budget 
resolution, particularly as they relate to healthcare and veterans 
issues, will have dire consequences for a substantial portion of our 
nation. However, I will support the budget resolution today to ensure 
that this process moves forward. I know that last year Congress was 
unable to pass a budget resolution, and it greatly harmed our ability 
to move forward and to the work of the American people. It's critical 
that the House move the budget process forward, with the hope that the 
Senate will do its share and also pass a budget, which will trigger a 
conference. It is my hope that after today we will be one step closer 
to creating a fairer budget that maintains fiscal discipline while 
still meeting the needs of our constituents.

[[Page 6991]]

  As a four-year veteran, I have always worked hard to be a vocal 
advocate for veterans throughout my congressional career. I strongly 
oppose the provisions in H. Con. Res. 95 that call for approximately 
$15 billion in mandatory spending programs for veterans. These programs 
include compensation for service-connected disabilities, survivor 
benefits and veterans' education benefits. I do not believe that forced 
budgetary reductions in these important mandatory spending programs are 
in the best interest of disabled veterans and their families.
  While I will vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 95 in order to get the 
bill into conference with the Senate, I want to make it perfectly clear 
that I will not support the conference report on the budget resolution 
or any deeming resolution if it contains these or similar reductions in 
veterans' mandatory spending and does not provide sufficient funding 
for veterans' health care programs. Nor will I support the conference 
report if it contains significant reductions in Medicare funding. 
Moreover, if the conference report contains these types of reduction, I 
will do everything in my power to overturn them.
  What kind of message are we sending to the men and women currently 
serving in our Armed Forces, especially those in Iraq, when we cut 
funding for programs that benefit our nation's current veterans? I want 
to remind my colleagues of a quote by our first Commander-in-Chief 
George Washington: ``The willingness with which our young people are 
likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly 
proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were 
treated and appreciated by their nation.'' We must support the brave 
men and women who have sacrificed so much to keep our nation free.
  The Medicaid cuts contained in this budget can not be sustained. The 
cuts will seriously damage a program depended upon by our most 
vulnerable citizens. Waste, fraud, and abuse, particularly abuse, do 
exist but we must have time to excise these problems, without being 
forced into mandatory programmatic reductions. Also, we must realize 
that each of our States will be particularly hit hard by these cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I do believe that we can strike a balance that will 
provide tax relief to American families, fund our national priorities, 
while still achieving a balanced budget. I refuse, however, to do so on 
the backs of some of our nation's most vulnerable citizens; and I 
declare that I will consider myself bound by this resolution should the 
House and Senate fail to pass a joint budget resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as war begins in Iraq, Americans 
are rallying behind our Armed Forces. It is an extraordinary show of 
support for some of the finest men and women in America. They deserve 
our support and our gratitude.
  Our soldiers confront the gravest threat of our time: the combination 
of rogue regimes, weapons of mass destruction and the forces of global 
terrorism. The cause of peace will prevail when terrorists lose a 
wealthy patron and protector--Saddam Hussein.
  There is little doubt that Hussein will be fully disarmed. And the 
means of his disarmament will be carried out by the United States Army, 
Navy, Air Force and Marines. These are four institutions so identified 
with their commitment to honor, duty and country that words can never 
adequately convey their importance to the survival of freedom . . . to 
the survival of the United States of America.
  On the eve of the war, Marine Major-General J.N. Mattis explained the 
mission to his Corps. They are words every American soldier in the 
Persian Gulf can embrace.
  General Mattis said:

       On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind. . . . 
     Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with 
     members of the Iraqi army who chose to surrender. While we 
     will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, 
     we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry 
     and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a 
     lifetime under Saddam's oppression. . . .
       For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of 
     the men who carried the Division's colors in past battle--who 
     fought for life and never lost their nerve--carry out your 
     mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world 
     there is ``No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy'' than a U.S. 
     Marine.

  General Mattis deserves an enduring ``Semper Fi'' for inspiring our 
soldiers. We hope and pray for their safe return home.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I have four priorities for 
this budget; creating an environment for job creation, providing for 
the common defense, making quality health care more affordable, and 
improving education. I also want all these things must be done in a way 
that gets us back to a balanced budget within a reasonable period of 
time. The resolution we will pass tonight is tough medicine and doesn't 
do all it needs to do.
  I believe that this budget will create jobs and stimulate the 
economy. By leaving room for significant tax relief we can leave extra 
dollars in the pockets of millions of Americans. I support tax relief, 
particularly for small businesses that create jobs and I applaud the 
chairman for his work.
  During this time of war, this budget does a great job funding our 
national defense, both military spending and homeland security. This 
budget goes a long way toward making all Americans more secure. I am 
very concerned that even with the manager's changes, it sorely 
underfunds our veterans programs.
  Inroads have been made so this budget begins to address issues 
regarding the affordability of Health Care. When this budget was 
introduced it had spending levels in Medicare that were unworkable. 
Because of these cuts, I felt it necessary to introduce my own 
amendment that was not accepted by the House Rules Committee to provide 
more than $375 billion additional dollars for Medicare and other Health 
programs over the next 10 years. Changes made in the Medicare accounts 
since its introduction have relieved many of my concerns. I hope that 
the conference report will completely fix the funding of healthcare as 
it relates to Medicaid.
  The most difficult part of this budget for me to accept is the lack 
of commitment to education. Just last year we passed the landmark 
legislation, ``No Child Left Behind.'' I feel that this budget does not 
meet the promises we made in that legislation. The amendment that I 
proposed would have increased the budget authority on education by more 
than $70 billion over 10 years. I urge the conferees to renew our 
commitment to education and fund education at least to the President's 
level.
  I will vote for this budget, but my support comes cautiously. Last 
year we didn't have a budget and it created great difficulty in getting 
the appropriations done. We need to move this process forward building 
on the progress we have made in the last twenty-four hours. While I 
will support this budget today, I will not support a conference report 
that does not adequately support our veterans, keep our promises on 
education, create jobs, and improve our Nation's health system. I ask 
that the conferees make these important improvements before our final 
vote on this budget later this year.
  Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
explain why I voted for those budget alternatives I supported today. 
The passage of the budget resolution to day represents the culmination 
of a long and arduous process involving 435 members of Congress and 
their often divergent views and priorities. As each member of Congress 
represents a unique constituency, each with its own concerns, it is 
entirely fitting that alternatives be considered and debated before the 
final federal budget is passed by this body.
  This budget outlines the manner in which our shared national 
resources will be allocated for the year, and, as such, the resolution 
must be a statement of both our immediate needs as well as our long-
term priorities. Consequently, the budget process requires each of us 
to make tough choices when deciding how much to burden American 
families with taxes as well as how to allocate these limited resources 
to different categories of needs.
  The budget process often results in choices between imperfect 
alternatives that do not necessarily completely reflect any one 
member's priorities. In deciding which alternative to support, I 
balanced two primary priorities: my ardent desire to limit our 
spending's impact on the future, and my sincere belief that spending 
should be focused on programs that provide real investments in the 
future.
  To realize our long term goals, we ought to minimize our long-term 
debts. In doing so, we will allow our children to pay for their dreams 
without being saddled with our realities.
  I would like to bequeath to our children a world where we have 
tackled the problems of our day and provided them unfettered access to 
the tools they'll need tomorrow. If we are determined to spend our 
precious resources now (rather than saving them for our children's use) 
it is reasonable that we devote a large portion of these resources to 
the betterment of our children's future.
  Perhaps the most future-oriented use of a taxpayer's money is to 
invest in exploration of our world through research. Scientific 
inquiry, by its very nature, offers no guarantees; the paths of 
discovery are rife with pitfalls and stumbles. As the explosion of the 
Columbia tragically reminded us, exploring the unknown is never easy. 
It is often painful. In the end, however, scientific inquiry offers us 
our best hope that the world can be a better place.
  Through government assistance, some of the greatest minds of our time 
are working to find cures for the disease that plague us, young and 
old, rich and poor alike. Failing to

[[Page 6992]]

fund these initiatives robs our children of their hopes for a better 
world. One day in the future, these scientists will discover a cure for 
cancer, a vaccine for AIDS, and a better method for reaching further 
into the galaxy. We must continue to make their efforts a priority--
they are exploring for all of us.
  As we consider our nation's priorities, we must be absolutely certain 
that we fully fund education initiatives. Education is the ultimate 
mechanism for allowing social mobility by leveling the playing field of 
opportunity. The United States continues to be a beacon of hope for 
other nations as a place where anyone, regardless of socioeconomic 
background, race or parentage, is limited only by his or her dreams; a 
place where everyone can achieve their goals. Our promise as a nation 
rests on maintaining this ideal. As Thomas Jefferson once stated, ``If 
the condition of man is to be progressively ameliorated, as we fondly 
hope and believe, education is to be the chief instrument in effecting 
it.''
  My preference today was to vote for a budget that is both fiscally 
responsible and that focuses the Public's resources on those programs 
for which we can expect the greatest return on our investment. After 
considering the alternatives, I voted in favor of more than one 
alternative.
  The Blue-Dog budget provides a fiscally responsible alternative. As 
presented, this plan would have reduced the national debt by $1.35 
trillion, compared to the budget which passed. This reduction would 
have resulted in $250 billion less in taxes that our children would 
have to pay simply to pay the interest on this debt. While limiting the 
debt burden on our children, this alternative would also have cut taxes 
and focused resources to educational investments including student-loan 
and child nutrition programs.
  The budget committee's ranking member, Mr. Spratt, offered a budget 
which is a powerful statement of priorities and would have continued to 
fund our nation's important commitments to job creation, social 
security and medicare. This budget would have ensured that education 
and science programs be allocated the necessary funding to ensure that 
our nation continues to be a leader in the information age. It also 
would have allowed our children to meet the challenges of the future 
with the resources necessary to face them.
  Though none of the budget alternatives I supported passed, I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to continue to establish our 
priorities in the weeks and months ahead. It is crucial that as we do 
so we remember where we are going. If we are truly committed to social 
equality and to leaving no child behind, we must provide our children 
with the tools necessary to create an even better world than the 
entirely too dangerous one in which we now find ourselves. If we 
endeavor to better understand our world through research, we give hope 
to our children that they will not be afflicted by the ailments that we 
suffer today and we give them the legacy of vision to look beyond that 
which is not imaginable. Finally, we must not bind our children with 
debt if we hope to allow them to rise above our own accomplishments.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H. 
Con. Res. 95 because it fails to meet the challenges confronting our 
country. We need a balanced approach to fiscal responsibility that 
treats the national budget just like a household budget.
  America is going through very trying times. The economy is struggling 
unemployment is up, consumer confidence is down and our Armed Forces 
are at war. H. Con. Res. 95 fails to address these concerns because it 
embraces an inflated and fiscally irresponsible tax cut plan totaling 
$1.4 trillion. These tax cuts accommodate all of President Bush's 
proposals, but they would not provide the stimulus we need to jumpstart 
our economy. However, including all of them in this budget forces us to 
make deep cuts in heavily relied upon programs.
  I cannot go home and tell my constituents that I cut after-school 
programs, student loans, teacher quality programs, and COPS funding to 
make room for inflated tax cut plan that has no immediate impact on our 
economy.
  I also cannot go home and tell my constituents that I slashed $265 
billion in mandatory spending, placed an increased burden upon cash-
strapped States, reduced investments in highway construction, and only 
partially funded programs under the No Child Left Behind Act so we can 
make room for a back-loaded tax plan that crowds out important 
programs.
  And don't forget our ongoing war in Iraq. There is not one penny in 
this proposal that budgets for the war or the cost of rebuilding the 
economy.
  Some argue we can address these costs in a supplemental. However, 
supplementals are becoming more like 2nd budgets. If we have an idea of 
what something is going to cost, we should budget accordingly for it 
now. We should not be playing games with the numbers.
  This body should pass a budget that: Puts us back in balance; 
provides a tax stimulus that actually stimulates; secures our Homeland; 
offers a sensible prescription drug proposal; and sufficiently funds 
our military.
  Although I understand the need to make sacrifices if we want to 
jumpstart the economy, they shouldn't be made by passing bad policy.
  That is why I supported Democratic substitute. This budget projects a 
balanced budget in FY 2010, but does so with $500 billion less public 
debt than the committee-reported resolution. Unlike the resolution, the 
substitute does not cut domestic discretionary spending below the level 
needed to keep pace with inflation and does not contain any cuts in 
mandatory spending. Furthermore, the substitute provides a tax stimulus 
proposal that stimulates now.
  Another important contrast is the prescription drug provisions 
contained in each budget proposal. The Democratic substitute provides 
$528 billion in new funds over 10 years for a prescription drug 
benefit. The resolution, by contrast, establishes a $400 billion 
``reserve fund'' for Medicare prescription drugs and Medicare 
modernization. Why create a reserve fund instead of budgeting for a 
prescription drug proposal today?
  Reserve funds do not solve the problems confronting this country. We 
need specific budget allocations for specific problems. Generally 
addressing problems at a later time in a reserve fund simply dances 
around the issue.
  I want to support a budget that actually stimulates while taking into 
consideration long-term budget implications. There is no room for 
political gamesmanship when people lose their retirement savings, or 
their jobs.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 95. 
I do so reluctantly.
  I respect the President.
  I admire the Speaker more than I can say.
  I think Jim Nussle has done an extraordinary job under impossible 
conditions.
  But I am going to oppose the Nussle bill because I think it moves us 
in the wrong direction.
  There are strong arguments against my position, such as: This is only 
a step in a long process; the conference report is where the real vote 
is cast; and we must be loyal to the President and to the troops 
overseas.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that being loyal to the President or 
our troops in the Persian Gulf--or for that matter to all the other 
citizens--is really an issue here.
  This is a democratic process with which we work--and I know there are 
party pressures, and I know we need a budget--but this particular 
budget is not particularly helpful in solving our problems.
  At the very least I feel that we should wait until the President 
submits his ``supplemental'' request--based on what he feels the 
military will need. This will be, I assume, a rather large number.
  Also the issue of timing is critical. The expense budget which we 
will vote on is inherently tied to the tax reduction program. This 
scares me. Together the numbers are not right--the timing is bad. I ask 
myself--
  How can we vote to adversely impact medical and education expenses in 
a war atmosphere?
  How can we see our revenues collapsing in front of us and then 
consider a tax reduction bill which, while somewhat stimulating to our 
economy, will further deplete revenues?
  For me this package, I'm sorry to say, doesn't hang together.
  I just think we can do better.
  I hope we can do better--so that I can soon vote for a program which 
does right by us as a country long term, stimulates our economy short 
term--and keeps faith with the families of our troops in the Persian 
Gulf.
  Mrs. BROWN of Florida. This irresponsible Republican budget needs to 
be sent back to the drawing board. The war in Iraq is no reason to 
ignore the needs of this country. This budget cuts programs for our 
neediest citizens, while rewarding the wealthiest with huge tax cuts. 
It is particularly disturbing that at the very moment we send our young 
men and women into harms way, we fund the veterans budget at a level 
that keeps these national heroes waiting 12 months to see a doctor. 
This Congress can always seem to find plenty of money for tax cuts, but 
when it comes to veterans healthcare, we have nothing but lip service.
  This Republican budget is bad for America, and bad for my home State 
of Florida which is suffering badly from the one-two punch of the Bush 
Brothers. The President's budget:
  Cuts $20 million for After School Programs in Florida; cuts $3.7 
million in Teacher Quality

[[Page 6993]]

Funding for Florida; cuts $40 million in transportation funding for 
Florida; cuts $38 million from Election Reform efforts in Florida; cuts 
$16.5 million in Clean Water Funding for Florida; cuts $4.3 million 
from Community Service Block Grants in Florida; cuts $1.2 million in 
Energy Assistance Programs; and cuts $765 million for the COPS program, 
which put 7,280 new officers on Florida's streets.
  All this while his brother Governor Jeb Bush slashes funding for 
state education and health programs, squeezes Medicaid resources to pay 
for Capital Gains Tax Cuts, and uses money meant for Local First 
Responders to pad his budget shortfalls.
  This Republican budget was written for their political contributions, 
and not for the people of this country with real needs. Reject this 
sham budget, and support the CBC/Progressive budget. It's the right 
budget for every American.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret that I voted to 
support the fiscal year 2004 House Budget Resolution. I did so because 
I appreciate the value of moving the process along towards a Concurrent 
Resolution with the Senate. I will not vote for a final Concurrent 
Budget Resolution that contains the same levels of funding as the House 
Budget Resolution.
  It is my full expectation the cuts to Medicaid and Veterans programs 
will be restored in the final Concurrent Resolution. It is my intention 
to support a final Resolution that makes these programs whole again. 
New York hospitals face a Medicaid cut of $1 billion from New York 
State. It would be unthinkable for my hospitals to face a deep cut on 
the federal level at the same time. They have survived the 1997 
Balanced Budget Agreement cuts, but can stand no more. One of the 
hospitals in my district is already scheduled to close and I simply 
can't afford to lose another one.
  I support the goal of a balanced budget and have even cosponsored the 
Balanced Budget Act, but a balance is just that: matching the merits on 
both sides. Indeed there is some waste in the current programs and it 
is time for everyone to do some belt tightening, but the current cuts 
cannot stand.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his 
reluctant and temporary support for H. Con. Res. 95, the House Budget 
Resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, our country is facing a difficult fiscal situation and 
this budget resolution sets a framework for this Congress to carefully 
proceed over the next ten years. While the budget resolution reserves 
revenue to finance the full range of the tax cuts proposed by the 
President, this Member adamantly believes the proposed tax cut is too 
large and, in fact, this Member will not vote for such a large tax cut 
when the House separately votes on that issue.
  There are three reasons this Member is opposed to this large tax cut. 
First, it is fiscally irresponsible. Second, in the economic sense, 
eliminating the tax on dividends is not the best way to quickly and 
effectively stimulate the economy. Tax cuts for middle-income Americans 
and small businesses is far more effective, and eliminating the tax on 
dividends may in fact drain money from capital goods to dividends for 
the corporate leaders' pocketbooks through their large stock holdings 
in their company. And third, the elimination of the tax on dividends as 
a major part of this tax cut package is not equitable, because a very 
high percentage of tax relief would go to a small percentage of 
taxpayers.
  The elimination or substantial reduction of the tax on dividends, 
which results in an estimated reduction in tax revenue of more than an 
estimated $100 billion per year, is simply not sound fiscal policy--
especially given the estimated size of the deficit, the unknown costs 
of the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the costs of homeland 
security measures.
  If the budget protects Medicare from huge cuts, as it must, and 
increases even more the revenues for veterans programs, it would cause 
impossibly large cuts in the rest of the discretionary budget. This cut 
in the remainder of the domestic programs required by this budget 
proposal is too severe even when the savings from the elimination of 
waste, fraud and abuse is taken into account.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to do what the other body is considering--
responsibly cut back the size of the huge tax cut. It is this Member's 
hope that the conference agreement on the budget will follow the 
Senate's lead and decrease the funds held in reserve to finance a tax 
cut. If the conference report comes back to the House with the same 
fiscally unsound level of tax cuts and substantially the same level of 
tax cuts related to eliminating the tax on dividends, this Member will 
vote ``no'' on the conference report. It is fiscally irresponsible and 
inequitable to middle-income taxpayers, and the proposal to eliminate 
taxes on dividends will not give us the immediate economic stimulation 
our country needs.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member votes ``aye'' on this budget 
proposal in order to move the process along. As we learned from last 
year's inaction on the budget by the other body, the passage of a 
budget resolution is critically important as the first step in the 
annual appropriations process that funds the U.S. Government and 
provides invaluable services to our constituents. As a result, this 
Member cannot in good conscience vote to stop or stall the process at 
this early stage. However, be assured that this Member will follow-up 
on his commitment to vote ``no'' on the conference report if the level 
of tax cuts is not decreased and the huge amount dedicated to 
eliminating the tax on dividends is not dropped or very substantially 
reduced.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to 
support the budget resolution before us today. While the budget before 
us makes great strides to control spending and reduce the deficit, I am 
afraid the Veterans Administration will not have the necessary 
resources to take care of our nation's veterans. I know that many of my 
Virginia congressional colleagues share these same concerns as well.
  While I fully recognize that no budget is perfect, I hope we can all 
agree that providing health care to our nation's veterans should be the 
last place we look to reduce spending. Perhaps it would be more 
appropriate for us to review our spending on foreign aid before we ask 
our veterans to sacrifice yet again for their country. At a time when 
our country has soldiers deployed in Iraq in defense of freedom, it is 
important that we do not leave behind the men and women who have served 
our country in the past.
  I will vote for this budget, however, because I believe it is vital 
that we keep the budget process moving. Further delaying the budget 
could negatively impact defense, homeland security, and other important 
government functions. As we all know, by failing to pass a budget 
resolution last year, the Senate caused a train wreck in the 
appropriations process. The House and the Senate never agreed on a 
common budget, which left the respective appropriations committees 
working from two different, irreconcilable sets of numbers. That 
resulted in Congress working on appropriations bills in January--bills 
that should have been completed last September. With America now at 
war, we cannot allow that to happen again.
  It is my hope that the final product will be improved, so that I will 
be able to support the final budget conference report.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget resolution. There are many reasons to oppose this 
budget, but I am going to concentrate on just one.
  This resolution quite simply pays for tax cuts that benefit the 
wealthy by cutting programs for seniors and disabled people who are 
most in need of help in meeting their medical expenses.
  The original version of this resolution was quite explicit: it 
required massive cuts in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 
Facing an uproar from beneficiaries and providers alike, what have our 
Republican colleagues done. They have responded by concentrating all of 
the cuts on Medicaid, the program that serves the neediest seniors and 
disabled beneficiaries, as well as millions of poor children.
  They think they can fool people by doing this. But millions of 
America's seniors--widows living on Social Security, people in nursing 
homes, seniors living on modest budgets--are totally dependent on the 
additional assistance they get from Medicaid so Medicare can work for 
them. They know what these cuts mean. They need the help they get with 
their Medicare premiums and cost-sharing. They need Medicaid coverage 
of prescription drugs.
  And they know that Medicaid is the only source of payment for long-
term care services--both nursing home care and home and community based 
services. It is Medicaid payments that nursing homes rely on--to pay 
staff, to maintain quality, to provide services.
  Medicaid is a critical payer for hospitals, community health centers, 
clinics and providers that serve the disabled, the low-income, the 
uninsured, and seniors.
  Two-thirds of the dollars we spend in Medicaid go to seniors and 
disabled people, the very same population served by Medicare. These 
beneficiaries need both programs. And we all know our States are in 
desperate need of additional funds to maintain Medicaid coverage and 
services.
  This budget responds to this crisis by slashing Medicaid instead of 
helping, by turning our backs on millions of disabled people, kids, and 
low-income seniors instead of assisting them.

[[Page 6994]]

This budget responds with a proposed cut in Medicaid twice as big as 
any reduction made by any previous Congress.
  The Republicans have responded to the charge that they were financing 
their tax cuts on the backs of seniors and the disabled by financing 
them on the backs of the POOR seniors and disabled.
  This budget will cripple our States, it will add to the numbers of 
uninsured, and it will be devastating for millions of Medicare 
beneficiaries who need extra help.
  If the majority passes this budget, it will show the true colors of 
the Republican party. It will show a lack of caring for the most 
vulnerable of our seniors, for the disabled, for poor kids and their 
moms, for the institutions in this country who try to deliver health 
care to them, and to the States that are struggling to provide for 
them.
  We should defeat this budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time for debate having 
expired, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Isakson, 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, pursuant to House Resolution 151, he reported the concurrent 
resolution, as amended by the adoption of that resolution, back to the 
House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution, as amended.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on House 
Concurrent Resolution 95, the budget resolution, will be followed by a 
5-minute vote on House Current Resolution 104 regarding Operation Iraqi 
Freedom.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 212, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 82]

                               YEAS--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     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
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--212

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     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)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Buyer
     Gordon
     Lipinski
     McCarthy (MO)
     Saxton
     Snyder
     Thornberry
     Udall (CO)

                              {time}  0254

  Mr. COMBEST and Mr. HALL of Texas changed their votes from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________