[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5112-5120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

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

                              {time}  1820


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 393) establishing the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2005 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years

[[Page 5113]]

2004 and 2006 through 2009, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
following time remained for general debate confined to the 
congressional budget: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) had 53\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) had 
57\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  In addition, 1 hour remains on the subject of economic goals and 
policies, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood)
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the chairman for the time 
and commend him on the job that he has done on the budget process. It 
is very difficult to please 435 people and nobody is ever happy in the 
end. It was not exactly like they thought it would be. So I think the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has done yeoman's work on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise on the floor today to strongly urge my 
colleagues to consider the path of fiscal responsibility and debt 
reduction at this critical juncture for our Nation. I rise to offer my 
support for the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution to get this Congress 
and our Nation on the right path.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all too painfully aware of the tragic events of 
September 11, 2001, and our Nation's and the free world's war on 
terrorism that has ensued. It has been a war that the American people 
did not ask for. It has been a challenge to the people of this country, 
the greatest and most free nation on Earth. But the costs, Mr. 
Chairman, the costs have been great in virtually every single way.
  On the fiscal side of the ledger, the cost that this Nation has 
incurred could never have been foreseen. This body has agreed and 
enacted, rightfully so in my opinion, to pay that price and fight this 
war.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the time to address the growing debt is also at 
hand, and this resolution, the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution, gets 
us on that path of fiscal responsibility and beginning to pay down our 
debt without compromising our effort in the war on terrorism or any 
other of our Nation's critical priorities, without raising the taxes of 
hardworking Americans.
  The numbers tell the story. Under this budget, the deficit falls to 
$377 billion in the 2005 fiscal year and it is cut in half in 4 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the hardworking folks I represent in northeast Georgia 
have to make a tough decision around their kitchen tables every day to 
live within their fiscal means. It is time this Congress followed the 
lead of Georgians and all Americans, hardworking taxpayers, in getting 
our financial house in order. But, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely not 
time and it never will be time to saddle those same taxpayers in 
Georgia and all over this great Nation with higher Federal taxes in the 
name of government-knows-best budgeting.
  Mr. Chairman, as the folks in Georgia also know, we can slap some 
lipstick on a hog and dress it up, but at the end of the day it is 
still a hog. And any budget proposal that sticks it to the working man 
through higher taxes, funds government pet projects, and pretends to be 
something that it is not, well, that certainly smells a little bit like 
a hog to me.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, get this Congress and 
America on the path of fiscal responsibility. Reject the notion that 
raising taxes is the answer to everything and vote in favor of this 
budget resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks against the Republican budget because it cuts funding 
for Violence Against Women programs and in 10 years has cut Family 
Violence programs 10 percent.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do not 
intend to object, but I hope that if speeches are going to be made 
during the time of a unanimous consent request, that that time be taken 
out of the opposition's time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to address that issue.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget 
because it cuts women's education programs.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget 
because it cuts funding for women's business centers, among many other 
essential and effective programs.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because 
it cuts funds for Violence Against Women by $22 million, which is a 5.7 
percentage cut below the 2004 budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. 
McCarthy).
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican 
budget because it cuts women's education acts and programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Democratic budget 
substitute and in opposition to the Republican plan which fails to 
address the needs and fiscal challenges America faces today. Instead of 
creating jobs, it creates record deficits. It shortchanges education, 
healthcare, veterans and does little to aid the sagging economy. 
Further, it makes drastic cuts to programs that provide educational and 
business opportunities to women across the country.
  This budget eliminates Women's Educational Equity Act Programs, which 
fund activities promoting educational equity for girls and women. Over 
10 percent of young women drop out of high school, yet the President's 
budget eliminates funding for dropout prevention programs. As a former 
teacher, I understand the importance of education in providing young 
men and women with the background they need to lead successful lives. 
This budget cuts many vital programs such as Head Start and Even Start 
and freezes funding for Pell Grants.
  More than 3.8 million women are looking for work, yet the 
Administration cuts $79 million in funding for the Small Business 
Administration, which helps women and minority owned small businesses 
grow. There are more than 7 million small businesses owned by women. 
The need for SBA assistance continues to be vital to my community.
  This budget freezes funding for The Child Care and Development Block 
Grant program, which provides child care assistance for low income 
families and early education services to disadvantaged children and is 
essential to working women nationwide.
  Further, violence against women prevention programs and SBA Women's 
Business Centers are underfunded, and no increase is requested by the 
Administration for the National Women's Business Council, which 
conducts invaluable research on issues of importance to women business 
owners and their organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget fails to meet the fiscal challenges America 
faces today and slashes programs that are the lifeline to working 
families, especially women heads of households. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Democratic substitute as a much more realistic budgetary 
solution that restores funding to vital programs and achieves balance 
in the budget and assistance to those who seek the American dream.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda 
T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the Republican budget because

[[Page 5114]]

it provides virtually no hope for the 20 million women without health 
insurance in this country.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican 
budget because it shamelessly undercuts the funding for Violence 
Against Women programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because it cuts 
funding for Violence Against Women Programs.
  The budget presented before us today provides only $362 million for 
the Violence Against Women Act programs--a cut of $22 million below 
this year's level.
  Historicaly, domestic violence has been a silent epidemic. According 
to the Commonwealth Fund, almost 4 million women are physically abused 
each year in the United States.
  Further statistics reveal that, in our country, battering is the 
single major injury to women exceeding muggings, rapes, and auto 
accidents combined.
  Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in this 
country, where they are more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped or 
killed by a male partner than by any other type of assailant.
  Each year, in my home-state of Indiana, thousands of women and 
children flee to emergency shelters to escape violence within their 
home. Approximately 90 percent of these abusers were a spouse, family 
member, boyfriend, or separated spouse.
  Ensuring that victims of domestic violence receive the necessary 
services to protect themselves and their children is one of the most 
important things this legislative body can do.
  However, violence against women is not only a national issue. 
Internationally, at least one in every three women has been beaten, 
coerced into sex or abused during her lifetime.
  Domestic violence encompasses all socioeconomic, racial, ethnic and 
religious groups worldwide. We can tackle the undignified treatment of 
women before it matures into violence, by conducting early prevention 
programs to teach young people the importance of supporting and 
respecting one another.
  I will continue to support initiatives to obtain gender equality, 
women's rights and put an end to violence against women here, in our 
nation, and abroad. In order to do this we must make sure that VAWA is 
fully funded within the budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget 
because it is fiscally irresponsible, bad for the economy, and it 
underfunds homeland security, education, veterans and women.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the 
Republican budget because it cuts most programs for women, most 
especially for Violence Against Women programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks 
about the Republican budget because it cuts funding for the Violence 
Against Women Programs.
  The funding for violence against women supports most of the programs 
created by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The programs impact 
the lives of women and children by bolstering prosecution of domestic 
violence, sexual assault, increasing services for victims by funding 
shelters and increasing resources for law enforcement personnel. The 
President's budget proposes to cut funding for these programs to $362 
million, a reduction of $22 million.
  Since the Violence Against Women Act was implemented, there has been 
a 25 percent decrease in violence against women. This 25 percent 
decrease demonstrates, the effectiveness of the policing and 
prosecutions that these programs fund.
  Violence against women is a global epidemic. It is not a woman's 
issue and it is not a ``private'' issue. We need to restore the $22 
million to the Violence Against Women Programs to show the women, 
children and families across the country that we are committed to 
creating a safer and more peaceful world for them.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the President's budget and 
the Republican budget because of their lack of attention to the need of 
the uninsured with no health care.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget 
because the Republican budget virtually guarantees cuts in women's 
programs as the President's budget already does.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican 
budget because it jeopardizes Even Start for children and families.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Republican and 
Presidential budget because it opposes the veterans' budget, civil 
rights budget, women's support, children's support and homeland 
security.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget 
because it would place my USC girls' number one volleyball team, who 
were here at the White House yesterday, at risk.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine 
Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the 
Republican budget because it continues a practice of reverse Robin 
Hood, robbing from the poor and working people to give tax breaks to 
the rich.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget 
because it does not accelerate the child tax credit for 250,000 men and 
women who are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget 
because it reduces the number of Section 8 housing vouchers which 
provides subsidized housing for women, children and families.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this budget because while 
this administration is proposing to spend billions of dollars to build 
schools in Iraq, there is zero in this budget for school construction 
for the public schools in America.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself half a minute just to say I 
certainly have enormous respect for people's opinions, but I have to 
say I do not see a volleyball team anywhere in the budget that was 
mentioned, that we cut a volleyball team; and I am looking through 
here, and I just do not see it.
  I am amazed by the conversation we are hearing here today. My guess 
is that there is not a volleyball team funded in any of the other 
alternative budgets either, and if there is, I hope to God that it does 
not pass.
  We need to make sure that we control spending, and I do not think 
volleyball spending should be part of the Federal budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Brown), a very distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the 
effort that the chairman has done to bring this document to the House 
floor, and

[[Page 5115]]

I rise in support of this resolution; and I have got a few charts that 
we wanted to show to support the reason we are supporting this budget 
resolution.
  Since we met here to consider our budget last year at this time, our 
economy, then struggling to gain traction, has made a tremendous, 
remarkable comeback. The policies we have put in place to deal with the 
extraordinary circumstances of the past few years have worked and 
continue to work.
  Today, our economy is showing robust growth. The strong growth is 
expected to continue. In the third quarter of 2003, we saw the GDP 
growth at 8.2 percent, the highest surge in 20 years; and that was 
followed in the fourth quarter with a growth rate of 4.1 percent, still 
strong by historical standards.
  It is interesting to note that last year at this time, private 
forecasters were expecting real GDP growth of 3.6 percent for 2004. Now 
they are expecting 4.7 percent for 2004.
  Housing starts are running at their highest levels in 20 years. 
Mortgage rates continue to run at their lowest levels in over 3 
decades, and the bank prime rate is at its lowest level in 45 years. 
Inflation has been running at its lowest level in nearly 4 decades. 
U.S. real exports of goods and services rose in the fourth quarter at a 
20 percent rate, the fastest pace in 7 years.
  We have seen a significant increase in the stock market. The Dow 
Jones Industrial Average is up 25 percent since March of last year.
  Most important, labor markets are improving. The unemployment rate is 
down 5.6 percent from 6.3 percent just last June.
  We must keep this momentum. We cannot afford to cut this recovery off 
at the knees just as we are getting back on track.
  This budget will keep taxes from increasing. If we do not act, 
Americans will face a tax increase next year. This budget helps to make 
sure that a family of four earning $40,000 will not have to face a tax 
increase of nearly $1,000 next year. Make no mistake, a tax increase 
would hurt our economy and destroy jobs.
  This budget places economic growth and job creation at the highest 
priority by supporting those policies that are fueling the economic 
recovery. We need to keep the economy and jobs growing, and this budget 
supports those goals.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson) so that she can respond.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, what I did say is it would have placed my 
number one USC volleyball team at risk because this bill eliminates the 
Women's Educational Equity Act.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATSON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I would even provide the gentlewoman with 
some time if she can find that in the budget. I have got the budget 
here. If she can find volleyball or the Women's Athletic Act or 
anything in this budget, I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman if she can find that for me in my budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  If the gentlewoman can either find it in my budget or someone else's 
budget, the word ``volleyball'' does not appear and that act does not 
appear in this budget or in the gentlewoman's alternative budget.
  So I guess I would just suggest that this is where the rhetoric 
starts getting a little bit, we have got to be a little careful here 
when we start running to the floor, on the one hand, while concerning 
ourselves with deficit spending and, on the other hand, coming to the 
floor, which I would suggest is somewhat shrill, suggesting that we are 
cutting volleyball teams in a budget like this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, Federal spending in recent years has been 
growing, particularly in the wake of our national emergency on 
September 11, at a record-breaking pace. The Congressional Budget 
Office projects that current policies could produce a cumulative 
deficit of nearly $2 trillion for the 10 years that lie immediately 
ahead of us.
  Federal spending breaks down today to a burden of more than $20,000 
per household, the highest since World War II, and yesterday's report 
by the Social Security and Medicare board of trustees was 
disconcerting, to say the least, about the long-term obligations that 
this government faces.
  Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that I have 
taken some strong stands in recent days to confront my concern for 
runaway Federal spending, but it is with equal conviction that I rise 
today to endorse and support the concurrent resolution on the budget 
for fiscal year 2005.
  The good news today in this budget is that Republicans in Congress 
are taking an important first step under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and under the leadership of our 
Speaker, our majority leader, and the balance of the majority of this 
Congress to right the fiscal ship that has been listing in the 
direction of government spending. We are truly taking an important 
first step in this budget to put our fiscal house in order; and I, as a 
conservative Member of this Congress, rise to extol its virtues.
  This budget holds the line on spending. It makes permanent the tax 
cuts of 2001 and 2003, and it funds our vital defense during a time of 
war.
  Mr. Chairman, during World War II, President Roosevelt signed a 
budget that actually reduced nondefense spending. President Truman did 
the same thing during the Korean War, and this budget resolution 
follows the same ethic by freezing nondefense, nonhomeland security 
spending at current levels for the first time in a generation.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget is a tough solution to a tough problem. The 
easy solution, on the other hand, would be to listen to many who 
propose that simply some day in the not-too-distant future that we will 
raise taxes, but one of the undeniable truths of the modern era is that 
when we raise taxes on the American family, the Congress simply raises 
the amount of money it spends in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Chairman, budgets are all about priorities, and there are those 
in this body who claim that we are not spending enough in this budget; 
but in the very same breath, we will hear on this floor tonight and 
tomorrow a lament about deficits and about debt. Well, they cannot have 
it both ways.
  This budget sends a clear message to the American people that we are 
truly committed to cutting the deficit and to winning the war on 
terrorism and to growing this economy through tax cuts.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for his 
yeoman's work on this budget, as evidence of the fiscal conservative 
principles for which this Republican majority is endorsed and 
celebrated by millions. As a conservative, I support these priorities. 
As a conservative, I support this budget and urge all of my colleagues, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, who lament the deficits and the 
fiscal, spendthrift ways of the past and urge their support in passage 
of this 2005 budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield for one more unanimous consent 
request to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks about this budget because it needlessly underfunds 
the Violence Against Women's Act and cuts so many programs important to 
women.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking out of order here, and I thank 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) be yielded 10 minutes of the Joint Economic 
Committee time for purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 5116]]


  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, as the senior Democrat on the Joint Economic 
Committee, I am honored to be here today to continue the tradition 
begun by Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins.
  I came here last year and accused President Bush of being a liar. A 
year later, I feel no reason to apologize or change my opinion. Events 
have proved that point.
  It has been proven that there was no evidence of weapons of mass 
destruction. In the economic report that the President signed, he tried 
to spin a recovery on jobs but the fact is----


                      Announcement By The Chairman

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

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) for the gentleman's hard work on this fiscally sound budget.
  I would like to bring to Members' attention a very valuable programs 
which pays for itself, saves the government money and energy, and 
creates jobs in local communities. It is called the Energy Performance 
Savings Performance Contracting, or ESPC.
  It has been documented over time that many government facilities have 
energy inefficient equipment and buildings that need to be modernized 
so that they operate at peak efficiency. However, Federal agencies do 
not have the funds, nor in some cases the expertise, to perform this 
kind of work. The ESPC program allows the government to modernize 
facilities without spending upfront funds. Additionally, the program 
saves the government and taxpayers money and creates precious jobs 
across the Nation.
  Under ESPC, the private sector installs new energy efficient 
equipment in Federal facilities at no upfront cost to the government. 
Federal agencies then pay off this investment over time with the funds 
saved on utility costs. It is important to note that the private sector 
contractor guarantees these savings and, by law, the government does 
not pay more for projects than it pays for in utilities.
  Energy analysts estimate that more than 50 federally approved 
projects worth close to $300 million are stalled at military bases and 
Federal agency offices nationwide. Additionally, this lapse has cost 
over 2,000 jobs nationwide.
  The reauthorization of this valuable program has been stymied because 
the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office 
disagree on whether or not to score the program. The OMB and the CBO 
have not scored the ESPC as a cost to the government since its 
inception. However, this year while the OMB still does not score the 
program, the CBO scores it at a significant cost over the next 10 
years.
  There is no doubt that energy efficiency is essential to meeting our 
Nation's goals. As the single largest consumer of energy, the Federal 
Government can do a great deal to help the Nation meet this goal, 
especially through this program. Thus, it is my hope that the scoring 
discrepancies between the OMB and the CBO can be resolved when the 
budget resolution goes to conference.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to start off by thanking the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his incredible work on 
this budget and for helping the American people understand what is at 
stake here. And as far as I have heard, it has been scored so it seems 
to me we are talking about different things here.
  Here are the top 10 reasons we Democrats oppose the Republican budget 
resolution. First, it makes the ballooning deficit even worse.
  It fails to protect Social Security. It spends every penny of the 
Social Security surplus over the next 5 years, $1 trillion.
  It offers more of the same failed economic policies that have already 
caused the loss of 3 million private sector jobs during this 
administration.
  It underfunds education and, specifically, the No Child Left Behind 
Act by over $9 billion less than was promised.
  It provides for $1.3 billion less than the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee on a bipartisan basis recommended for our country's veterans.

[[Page 5117]]

  It cuts homeland security at a time of national insecurity below even 
the President's request by nearly $857 million.
  It fails to protect the Nation's environment.
  It cuts funding for the National Institutes of Health, Maternal and 
Child Health.
  It creates long-term deficits that will undermine economic growth and 
fails to extend unemployment insurance to those who have lost their 
jobs.
  And during the war on terror, it actually cuts benefits to widows of 
military retirees, limits improvements to military housing, and 
discontinues last year's TRICARE for Reservists.
  And the President's tax cut proposal is a gift that keeps on taking, 
taking from our children, our families, and our seniors. His tax cut 
takes from the next generation and replaces with that taking a mountain 
of debt on the backs of our children. America simply cannot be red, 
white and broke and meet its challenges at home and abroad; but that is 
exactly where the Republican budget takes us.
  Therefore, it is the duty of Democrats to bring these wrong 
priorities for America to the light of day, and to offer an alternative 
that reflects the priorities of America's working families by 
stimulating the economy, by creating jobs, by expanding educational 
opportunity, by improving health care, by strengthening homeland 
security, those first responders we see the President take the pictures 
with, but then he goes ahead and cuts their funding dramatically. It is 
outrageous. Tell him to go see the firefighters now that he cut a 
quarter of a billion dollars, and after he basically zeroed out the 
Safer Act to help communities hire more firefighters, or the 
interoperable communications equipment that is necessary. Tell the 
firefighters how you are their friend and how you are their heroes with 
this budget.
  We do all of our things, however, in a positive way by creating 
opportunities, and, yes, helping the firefighters and all those who 
provide emergency management for homeland security while bringing our 
budget into balance in 8 years.
  In fact, over the next 5 years the Democratic budget is going to 
provide over $9 billion more for education and training than the 
Republican budget, $11 billion more for health care programs than the 
Republican budget, $17 billion more for environmental protection than 
the Republican budget, nearly $6 billion more for first responders for 
port security, for aviation security, and for border security than the 
Republican budget.
  And the Democratic budget also targets $2 billion in fiscal year 2005 
to support our troops and includes the full $2.5 billion increase that 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs says is critically needed for our 
Nation's veterans.
  It is time for Republicans to stop lamenting the deficit they 
recklessly created and join us in balancing the budget just like 
American families have to do every day of their lives, and give us an 
opportunity for a future of hope, growth and opportunity, not a future 
of debt and despair.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this budget 
that continues the same failed economic policies that have moved our 
record surpluses to record deficits in record time. Its single-minded 
focus is on tax policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of 
everyone else.
  Let me give one example of the misguided tax priorities that guide 
this budget. More than 25 million families received a $400-per-child 
increase in the child tax credit last year. However, during final 
negotiations of the tax legislation passed by this Congress, the 
families of approximately 12 million children were excluded from this 
increased credit. Among the families who did not receive the 
acceleration of the tax credit are 250,000 men and women who today 
continue to fight and die in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The 20 million 
children who did not receive the full increase, including 12 million 
who did not receive any increase at all, did not because their 
families, they were told, do not pay enough in income taxes to receive 
the credit. But yet these families pay taxes: payroll taxes, State and 
local taxes, sale taxes, all of which place a far heavier burden on 
those with the lowest income.
  Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic substitute would right 
this injustice. In addition to being the right thing to do for 
families, this cut would stimulate our economy. Only about a quarter of 
the $300 rebate from the last tax cut was put back into the economy. 
Giving tax cuts to families who would spend the money immediately would 
be the best stimulus we could give our economy right now.
  Mr. Chairman, it does come down to priorities. By supporting the 
Republican budget, we continue down the same path of failed economic 
policy developed with misguided values and priorities; and by 
supporting the Spratt substitute and extending the child tax credit to 
these 6.5 million families, we draw upon our Nation's shared values. We 
act with a shared sense of purpose and responsibility that helps us to 
address the most important tasks before this country. That should be 
the goal in this budget. That is what this institution should aspire to 
do.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to concentrate on an area of this 
budget that could have devastating effects on Medicaid coverage and 
safety net institutions that serve the uninsured.
  This budget requires cuts of $2.2 billion in the Medicaid and S-CHIP 
programs, stripping away critically needed Federal funds from already 
beleaguered and underfunded State Medicaid programs that serve the 
poorest among us.
  We know States are in budgetary crisis. We know we would have 
millions more uninsured if we had not provided a temporary increase in 
the Federal matching rate for Medicaid. But instead of providing funds 
to extend this higher matching rate, there are no funds allocated for 
that; and it will expire. Instead, we are compounding the problem by 
requiring cuts in Federal funding for Medicaid and S-CHIP. Assuring 
that these cuts do not occur is not and should not be a partisan issue.
  I want to read from a letter Governor Schwarzenegger sent earlier 
this week to the entire California delegation. He said, ``I am writing 
to urge your opposition to proposed reductions in Medicaid funding that 
could significantly jeopardize support for services to low-income, 
underserved Californians. Given California's budget challenges, the 
rising number of uninsured and the financially precarious position of 
many of the State's safety net providers, California can ill-afford 
reductions in Federal Medicaid spending.
  ``I am particularly concerned by any proposals that would reduce the 
critical funding California uses to support its hospital safety net. 
Clearly, reductions of this magnitude will place tremendous stress on 
the State's already financially fragile health care safety net, 
compelling hospitals to cut back on emergency and trauma care 
throughout California and, quite possibly, put entire hospitals at risk 
of closure.''
  Mr. Chairman, surely anyone concerned about the 43 million Americans 
who are already uninsured in this country must see the folly of 
adopting cuts in this budget which would add to that number and 
simultaneously cripple the safety net institutions which are their only 
source of care. This is reason enough to vote against this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the full text of Governor 
Schwarzenegger's letter.

                                                   March 22, 2004.
       Dear California Delegation Member: I am writing to urge 
     your opposition to proposed reductions in Medicaid funding 
     that could significantly jeopardize support for services to 
     low-income, underserved Californians. Given California's 
     budget challenges, the rising number of uninsured, and the 
     financially precarious position of many of the state's safety 
     net providers, California can ill afford reductions in 
     federal Medicaid spending.
       California opposes reductions in Medicaid funding and 
     changes in current policy that

[[Page 5118]]

     would erode federal support of the state's fragile health 
     care delivery system. I am particularly concerned by any 
     proposals that would reduce the critical funding California 
     uses to support its hospital safety net. Cuts in Medicaid 
     funding for intergovernmental transfers, for example, could 
     put $900 million in federal funds to California per year at 
     risk; Los Angeles County alone would lose $500 million in 
     funding for its hospitals. Clearly, reductions of this 
     magnitude will place tremendous stress on the state's already 
     financially fragile health care safety net, compelling 
     hospitals to cut back on emergency and trauma care throughout 
     California and, quite possibly, put entire hospitals at risk 
     of closure.
       I share Congress' commitment to further controlling 
     Medicaid spending in California and eliminating waste, fraud 
     and abuse in the program. Consistent with that commitment, I 
     have proposed a comprehensive redesign of our state's 
     Medicaid program to preserve health care coverage while 
     managing costs in a more effective manner. Additionally we 
     have a number of proposals to further the state's efforts to 
     crack down on fraud and abuse in the program. These efforts 
     will result in cost savings to both the State and federal 
     governments.
       Moreover, California already operates one of the most cost-
     effective Medicaid programs in the country. The state's low 
     per capita spending coupled with its low federal Medicaid 
     matching rate combine to make the federal per capita 
     contribution the lowest in the nation. As a result, 
     California cannot afford reductions in federal Medicaid 
     funding.
       Over 6.5 million Californians rely on the state's Medicaid 
     program to access essential health care services. As the 
     budget process moves forward, I urge you to oppose proposed 
     cuts to Medicaid spending that will undermine the system of 
     health care low-income Californians rely upon for their 
     medical needs. I ask that you not cut funds for reimbursing 
     states for their Medicaid costs or funds used by California 
     to ensure that critical hospitals in the State are able to 
     provide emergency room and trauma care.
           Sincerely,
                                            Arnold Schwarzenegger.

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

                              {time}  1900

  It undercuts vocational and technical education programs, the Perkins 
loans, it underinvests in community colleges. We will pay a heavy price 
in the future if this underinvestment continues.
  As this chart demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, the history of the 
Republican Congress when it comes to living up to the promise of fully 
funding No Child Left Behind, over the last couple of fiscal years, 
they have fallen way short of the promise to fully fund. This has been 
the track record. Make no mistake, these are new Federal mandates, 
requirements on local school districts, requiring them to do certain 
things with our children; but they are not providing the resources and 
tools they need to succeed.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, we had Chairman Greenspan testify before 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. In his opinion, he felt 
one of the most important priorities of investment we need to make in 
the Federal budget is in education and job training programs so that 
our children, our workers, are as competitive as they can be in this 
new global marketplace. This Republican budget falls short of that 
investment.
  The Democratic substitute that we will be offering tomorrow has 
substantial increases in investments in No Child Left Behind, special 
education, vocational education, Perkins loans and investment in our 
community colleges.
  There is a clear difference in the vision of the future of this 
Nation, where our priorities as a party lie, where our values are 
shared throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, this majority budget falls 
short of that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I am trying understand here, when we talk about the other side where 
it is just talking about the fact that we are not living up to our 
commitments. Just so everybody knows, there are some other charts here 
that we want you to see.
  Total education: Annual growth over the last 5 years in the education 
accounts averaged 11 percent per year in those 5 years. So when we hear 
this lament that we are not spending enough on education, here are the 
facts. Eleven percent. There is no other part of government that has 
been growing at that kind of rate. In fact, it is growing faster than 
national defense.
  Let me show you another one. Special education, over the last 5 
years, the average growth was 19 percent. While they are complaining 
about special education, we have not seen the final total, but I will 
bet they do not fully fund special education in their budget. I bet 
they do not reach that, do they? They just complain about it.
  Yes, they say they give a little bit more, but we have been providing 
19 percent per year. Spending has more than doubled over the last 5 
years for special education.
  Last but not least is No Child Left Behind. The No Child Left Behind 
program funding has grown 40 percent under this President. Annual 
growth over the last 4 years, my colleagues can see before them right 
here. In fact, it has happened so fast, there are States, Iowa is one 
of them, where Iowa actually had to turn back money that we are looking 
to investigate, we want to find out exactly why it is that money that 
went to Iowa and to other States under No Child Left Behind has now 
been sent back. That is unconscionable at a time when our classrooms 
and our teachers are talking to us, telling us that they need more 
money.
  We are increasing. We are meeting the totals. If the States had grown 
at the level we have been growing at the Federal level, we would not be 
in the predicament we are in. We are meeting our obligations. The 
States are not. We are growing our budget. We will continue that 
commitment.
  So as the lament continues, just remember, the increases are in here 
and the increases are coming.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I am obviously referring to the broken 
promise the President made in fully funding No Child Left Behind when 
he signed it into law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, in the 2000 campaign, President Bush 
declared that he opposed nation-building. Who knew it was America he 
was talking about? When we look at this higher education agenda, the 
President can run for reelection saying he kept his promise against 
nation-building.
  Everybody understands the importance of higher education, opening 
doors of economic opportunity in a time of changing economic 
conditions. Pell Grants, the single largest educational opportunity we 
provide at the Federal level, is frozen. In fact, as tuition has been 
going up by 14 percent a year for the last 3 years, we have kept 
constant the Pell Grant and have not allowed it to increase with the 
cost of college education.
  Today, at the University of Illinois, the average graduate from the 
University of Illinois graduates on graduation day, gets a diploma plus 
$18,000 in debt. They get their first Visa bill when they graduate from 
college. We have frozen higher education assistance to middle-class 
families.
  During the campaign, President Bush promised to increase the Pell 
Grant to $5,100. Despite an average tuition increase of 14 percent, the 
Pell Grant today sits at $4,050. To me, that is a

[[Page 5119]]

fascinating way to invest in America's future. We make available all 
these types of assistance to corporations. That child is as important 
to America's future as a corporation, yet we have frozen and closed the 
doors of economic opportunity.
  And all while we were freezing our assistance to college education, 
in Iraq we have opened up 2,300 schools and distributed 1.5 million 
secondary and 800,000 primary school kits to the children of Iraq.
  We need to have a budget that reflects our values here at home with 
the same type of commitment we have held for the people of Iraq and for 
their children. Here in America we are limiting the educational options 
available to students and limiting the ability of Americans to compete 
in the world marketplace.
  I am glad to see the President kept his commitment, that is, to be 
opposed to nation-building. Unfortunately, he has chosen America as his 
model. This budget returns us and, in fact, you could label this budget 
as a back-to-the-future budget. What has it resulted in in the last 3 
years? Two-and-a-half million Americans have lost their jobs, 43 
million Americans are without health care, 2 million American children 
went from the middle class to poverty, and the most important fact is, 
we have had a wage recession in America, a 3 percent decline in wage 
income in America under this administration.
  This budget consistently follows the path of the last 3 years, the 
last three budgets of the President, and takes us back to the future to 
an economic time in which we have seen the job decline and the health 
care decline in this country. Unfortunately, in the area of higher 
education, they have frozen and kept the doors closed to middle-class 
families at a time when it is essential for them to go forward.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds again just to 
point out that the Democratic alternative, while they come to the floor 
and lament that we do not fully fund No Child Left Behind, guess what? 
The alternative budget presented by the Democrats does not fully fund 
No Child Left Behind. Is that not interesting? In fact, the chairman of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce has called it somewhat 
hypocritical that you would complain on one side and not propose a 
budget that funds it on the other.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, in response to that, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans have always known that education is about 
more than education. They have always understood that education was 
about their dreams, about their families, that education was about 
their children and their communities, that it was about the health of 
our economy and the future of our country. That is why we are so 
terribly disappointed when we see the broken promises by the President 
of these United States in this budget and the Republican Budget 
Committee, when we see that special education is not fully funded.
  And the gentleman is quite correct, it is not fully funded in our 
budget because you gave away all the money. You made a conscious 
decision 2 years ago in the Committee on the Budget not to fully fund 
education. It is a dead letter, except for the parents and the children 
who suffer from those disabilities and their families and looking for 
that educational opportunity. That was a campaign promise of this 
President, but it is broken in this budget, it was broken in last 
year's budget, and it was broken in the budget before.
  We argued about it in the committee, we had votes on the Senate 
floor, we had votes on it here; and the Republicans killed it each and 
every time we brought it up. Of course, then there was a promise of 
this President that he was going to raise the Pell Grant. But again he 
gave away all of the money, so he had to break his promise. He kept his 
promise to the wealthy, but he could not keep his promise to kids who 
were struggling to pay for their education. So the Pell Grant is worth 
less now than it was in 1976, but the cost of a college education is 
not what it was in 1976.
  And then, of course, there is the granddaddy of all broken promises, 
and that is, if we gave him real reforms in elementary and secondary 
education, real reforms, he promised us in the Oval Office of the White 
House that he would provide the real money to go along with that.
  He got the most significant reforms in Federal education policy in 40 
years. Those are his words. I agree with him. These are real. These are 
important. They are starting to make a difference. But we did not get 
the real resources to go with those real reforms. The President owes us 
about $9 billion in various parts of this program; $7.2 billion alone 
in Title I.
  Yes, we can come up with a budget, but the fact of the matter is, the 
President had other priorities. He simply chose to give tax cuts, and 
then after he gave the tax cuts we had a war, we had 9/11, we had 
another war, we had a recession.
  It did not bother the President. It did not faze him. He kept his 
promise to those wealthy people, those people making more than $4- or 
$500,000 a year, but he could not keep his promise to the school 
children. He just could not keep that promise. So he chose not to fully 
fund No Child Left Behind.
  I do not know what a Presidential promise is worth anymore. 
Apparently not much to school children, not much to the disabled 
community, it is not much to young people trying to finance their 
education. They cannot take that Presidential promise to the bank. They 
cannot take that Presidential promise to get service for their disabled 
children. They cannot take that Presidential promise to get 
supplementary services for their children in school who are having 
trouble. As No Child Left Behind provides, they will not have that 
qualified teacher in their classroom as the bill mandates the States to 
do. No. And they will not have that restructuring of the local 
education system as the bill mandates because the President did not 
keep his promise.
  The tragedy of this is Americans and their families understand the 
value and importance of education, but this Republican budget does not. 
It devalues education. Why does it do that? They are forced to do that, 
because they made a decision about the tax cuts and to loot the 
country. They looted the Treasury on behalf of the wealthy the first 
day that they came to office, and there is nothing left in that 
Treasury for the children of America, for their schools, for their 
higher education, for their disabilities.
  What a sad, sad portrait of the country. This portrait was 
intentionally painted by this Republican administration, this President 
and their friends at the Republican Budget Committee. It is a tragedy 
for this Nation.
  The Republican Budget Resolution provides for only a $2.8 billion 
increase over a frozen FY 2004 education funding level. This provides 
for meager increases in Title I, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA), and Pell grant funding--leaving these programs 
billions of dollars short of levels promised by the Bush Administration 
and House Republicans:
  The Republican Resolution would leave the No Child Left Behind Act 
(NCLB) $9.4 billion short of promised levels. This leaves our schools 
with a nearly $27 billion deficit in NCLB funding compared to what was 
promised when the law was enacted.
  The House Republican Budget resolution shortchanges education and job 
training programs at the time when American children, students and 
workers need the assistance the most.
  This year's House Republican Budget Resolution comes after yet 
another paltry budget submission by President Bush. The Bush budget 
represents the smallest increase in education spending in 9 years, 
cutting $1.4 billion in critical education programs, including those 
that improve family literacy, and provide school counselors to 
elementary school children. The budget resolution also continues the

[[Page 5120]]

Administration's unprecedented level of proposed cuts to job training 
and related programs--totaling $1.8 billion since he took office.
  The House Republican Budget Resolution shortchanges Title I funding 
by $7.2 billion. This Budget will deny nearly 5 million disadvantaged 
children critical education services, such as extra help to become 
proficient in reading and math.
  The Republican Budget Resolution freezes the maximum Pell grant for 
the third year in a row at $4,050 just as college tuition continues to 
rise faster than family income.
  The maximum Pell grant is worth $500 less (in real terms) than the 
maximum grant in 1975-76. Not only do the Republicans fail to stop 
tuition hikes, but they actually make college even more expensive by 
freezing or cutting student aid and increasing taxes on students.
  The Republican budget breaks President Bush's campaign promise to 
provide a $5,100 Pell grant.
  The House Republican Budget Resolution also calls for a freeze on 
teacher quality, after school, and technology programs. This means 
fewer professional development opportunities for teachers, fewer safe 
learning environments before and after school and less technologically 
advanced classrooms.
  The Republican Resolution would leave us over $11 billion short of 
fully funding special education. This budget calls for yet another $1 
billion increase for special education. At this rate of increase 
America's children with disabilities will never benefit from full 
funding of IDEA.
  The House Republican Budget Resolution would leave no room for any 
increase in Head Start funding. This means zero dollars to expand the 
program to serve more children and no added resources to improve 
program quality.
  During the Bush Administration, 2.2 million jobs have been lost--the 
worst job creation record in 70 years. To keep pace with the number of 
jobs available for working adults when President Bush took office, we 
would need to create 7.1 million new jobs today. In addition, there are 
over 2.8 million workers who would be engaged in the labor force, but 
they have either dropped out entirely or failed to enter the labor 
market because of the lack of jobs.
  Over 760,000 people have exhausted their unemployment benefits 
between the end of December and the end of February, and two million 
are projected to lose their benefits by June without an extension of 
these benefits. To make matters worse, President Bush has proposed to 
cut nearly $1.8 billion in job training and vocational education 
funding since he took office, eliminating training opportunities for 
thousands of workers. Now House Republicans answer these dire economic 
conditions by proposing a Budget Resolution without any meaningful help 
for American workers:
  The Republican Budget Resolution would freeze job training and 
vocational education funding. The Budget resolution utilizes its paltry 
increase for programs other than job training, leaving no room for an 
increase for these critical initiatives.
  The Republican Budget Resolution contains no funding for an extension 
of unemployment benefits. The Bush Administration and Congressional 
Republicans have failed to extend unemployment benefits despite 
continued high unemployment and lack of job growth, and despite the 
fact that $20 billion will be sitting, untapped, in the Unemployment 
Insurance Trust funds at the end of March.
  President Bush's budget severely cuts available child care assistance 
and the Republican budget resolution does nothing to rectify this 
situation. Despite the importance of quality child care on later 
academic achievement and despite research demonstrating how child care 
is the most important work support keeping low income workers employed, 
the Republican budgets significantly decrease the number of children 
served by the federal child care assistance program.
  According to the President's own budget documents, his decision to 
freeze child care funding will lead to more than a 10 percent decrease 
in child care assistance for low income workers. Despite serving only 
15 percent of eligible children to begin with, the Administration chose 
to cut the number of children served by child care assistance, from 2.5 
million in 2003 to 2.2 million by 2009.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to say, yes, 
but you did not, either. You had the choice to put an alternative 
budget on the floor to fully fund the promises that you are complaining 
about here today and you chose not to. So be careful what you promise 
on the campaign trail.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gilchrest) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 393) establishing the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and setting forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through 
2009, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________