[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7617-7618]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MAX SANDLIN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 20, 2003

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the Fiscal Year 2004 budget resolution.
  The Republican budget is completely divorced from reality, and 
operates under the fantasy that our country can afford a tax cut of 
$1.35 trillion as the United States embarks upon a necessary mission to 
liberate Iraq. The attempt to proceed with new tax cuts during a time 
of war is without precedent in American history, and for good reason; 
past administrations and Congresses have understood that our country 
cannot have its cake and eat it too. The Republican budget resolution 
does not take into account our country's current economic and military 
situations, and is stubbornly stuck in the past. The majority's efforts 
to pile new tax cut upon new tax cut are not without costs or 
consequences, and many groups in our society and in my district in East 
Texas will pay for these efforts.
  In their attempts to provide new tax cuts while simultaneously 
balancing the budget, the majority will succeed only in balancing the 
budget on the backs of our Nation's senior citizens, veterans, 
students, farmers, and economically disadvantaged. How the majority can 
propose spending cuts in veterans' health care during a time of war is 
beyond me, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Paralyzed Veterans of 
America share my amazement at that effort.
  Further, Chairman Nussle's original FY04 budget required nearly every 
authorizing committee to cut 1 percent in spending from last year's 
levels. The reconciliation instructions to the House Ways and Means and 
Energy and Commerce committees would have resulted in cuts of $260 
billion and $110 billion, respectively, over the next decade. These 
draconian cuts would have drained funds from both Medicare and 
Medicaid, and would have balanced the budget at the expense of seniors 
and the poor.
  The original Republican budget was so harmful and irresponsible that 
it had to be changed before it came to floor for consideration. Yet 
even after the Republicans ``improved'' their budget, the majority 
required spending cuts of $169 billion, with much of that total being 
slashed from the federal government's share of Medicaid funding. These 
required cuts are outrageous, and undermine the majority's persistent 
claims of pursuing an agenda of compassionate conservatism.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that tax relief is important, and I have 
supported the president's efforts to cut taxes in the past. I was one 
of only 28 House Democrats who voted for the president's $1.35 trillion 
tax cut package in May 2001, and one of only 9 House Democrats to 
support an effort to make these cuts permanent. Since the time of those 
votes, however, our economy and fiscal situations have deteriorated 
significantly, and the United States is now engaged in a potentially 
lengthy and costly war. Our country simply cannot afford to press ahead 
with the effort to pass new tax cuts, totaling $726 billion, on top of 
the continuing effort to make the president's 2001 tax cuts permanent.
  I am pleased that the Rules Committee made in order the Blue Dog 
budget alternative, and I urge my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to take this opportunity to support a responsible budget. By 
allowing the Blue Dogs to offer our budget substitute, the Republican 
leadership has finally acknowledged that the House needs to have an 
honest debate on a sensible alternative to the majority's unrealistic 
and irresponsible budget resolution.
  The Blue Dog substitute will balance the federal budget in ten years 
without relying on the Social Security surplus and without sacrificing 
our nation's veterans and seniors for new tax cuts. At the same time, 
the Blue Dogs provide both immediate and long-term tax relief to 
American taxpayers. This tax relief consists largely of an acceleration 
of cuts already

[[Page 7618]]

scheduled under current law, with the exception of rate cuts in the top 
two marginal brackets. It is both reasonable and necessary to defer 
reductions in the top two upper brackets until the costs of our current 
war effort are paid for and the federal budget is back in balance.
  Further, the Blue Dogs are committed to sticking with the president's 
overall funding levels for defense and non-defense discretionary 
spending. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join 
the Blue Dogs in our support of the president's total funding levels, 
and I urge every member of the House to support the reasonable, 
responsible Blue Dog budget alternative.

                          ____________________