[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5264-5337]
[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 House Resolution 574 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 393.

                              {time}  1150


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 393) establishing the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2005 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
2004 and 2006 through 2009, with Mr. LaTourette (Chairman pro tempore) 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on

[[Page 5265]]

Wednesday, March 24, 2004, all time for general debate pursuant to that 
order had expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 574, no further general debate is in 
order and the concurrent resolution is considered read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of House Concurrent Resolution 393 is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 393

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

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

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through 2009 are set forth.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

            TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

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

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

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

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

                   Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

Sec. 311. Contingency procedure for surface transportation.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

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

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2009:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,272,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,457,215,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,619,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,721,568,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,818,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,922,133,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: -$179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $19,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $34,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $33,376,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $27,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $30,927,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,952,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,010,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,071,186,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,193,395,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,311,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,431,782,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,911,235,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,007,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,083,910,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,169,446,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,277,071,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,393,946,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $638,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $550,711,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $464,075,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $447,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $458,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $471,813,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $7,436,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $8,087,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,675,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,244,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,823,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,419,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $4,385,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,775,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,060,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,312,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,560,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,807,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2004 through 2009 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $461,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $451,125,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $419,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $447,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $442,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $439,098,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $464,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $445,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $486,149,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $465,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $508,369,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $487,186,000,000.
       (2) Homeland Security (100):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,102,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,997,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,520,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,401,000,000.
       (3) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,281,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,776,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,927,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,228,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,099,000,000.
       (4) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,813,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,453,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,927,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,683,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,042,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,274,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,863,000,000.
       (5) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,397,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,583,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,629,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,285,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $891,000,000.
       (6) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2004:

[[Page 5266]]

       (A) New budget authority, $32,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,568,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,153,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,101,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,777,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,804,000,000.
       (7) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,087,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,501,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,310,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,278,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,199,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,042,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,956,000,000.
       (8) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,748,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,242,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,842,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,190,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,740,000,000.
       (9) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,204,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,578,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,452,000,000.
       (10) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,758,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,867,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,484,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,715,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,752,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,510,000,000.
       (11) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,463,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,405,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,523,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,492,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,596,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,738,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,366,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,685,000,000.
       (12) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $236,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $235,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $245,095,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $244,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $252,639,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $266,117,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $265,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $284,970,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $284,222,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $304,034,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $303,460,000,000.
       (13) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,567,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,126,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,974,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $322,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $363,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $387,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,278,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $413,853,000,000.
       (14) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $329,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $336,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $337,318,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $341,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $335,387,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $339,098,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $340,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $342,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $352,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $355,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $361,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $363,465,000,000.
       (15) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,396,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,396,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,094,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,589,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,049,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,049,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,989,000,000.
       (16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,179,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,501,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,106,000,000.
       (17) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,932,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,139,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,744,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,616,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,621,000,000.
       (18) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,806,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,198,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,419,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,075,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,044,000,000.
       (19) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $240,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:

[[Page 5267]]

       (A) New budget authority, $270,698,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,698,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $318,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $318,909,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $364,463,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,463,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $398,574,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $398,574,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $427,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $427,464,000,000.
       (20) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $250,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$47,233,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,349,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,475,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$62,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$63,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$65,485,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,856,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,893,000,000.

            TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste, 
     Fraud, and Abuse.--(1) Not later than July 15, 2004, the 
     House committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their 
     recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After 
     receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill 
     carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive 
     revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $110,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $371,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (B) Committee on education and the workforce: instruction 
     to provide fairness in federal workers compensation.--The 
     House Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the level of direct spending for that committee by $5,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 2005 and $43,000,000 in outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $410,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $2,185,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (D) Committee on government reform: instruction to increase 
     resources to authorize information sharing to allow federal 
     benefit programs limited access to federal and state 
     administrative data to verify eligibility.--The House 
     Committee on Government Reform shall report changes in laws 
     within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of 
     direct spending for that committee by $170,000,000 in outlays 
     for fiscal year 2005 and $2,365,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (E) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $1,126,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $8,269,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (b) Submission Providing for the Extension of Expiring Tax 
     Relief.--(1) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall 
     report a reconciliation bill not later than October 1, 2004, 
     that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce revenues by not more than 
     $13,182,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and by not more than 
     $137,580,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009.
       (2) If a reconciliation bill, as reported pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), does not increase the deficit for fiscal year 
     2005 or for the period of fiscal years 2005 though 2009 above 
     the levels permitted in such paragraph, the chairman of the 
     House Committee on the Budget may revise the reconciliation 
     instructions under this section to permit the Committee on 
     Ways and Means to increase the level of direct spending 
     outlays, make conforming adjustments to the revenue 
     instruction to decrease the reduction in revenues, and make 
     conforming changes in allocations to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means and in budget aggregates.

     SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON DEFENSE SAVINGS.

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

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR PENDING LEGISLATION.

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

                   Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

     SEC. 311. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--If the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House reports legislation, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides new budget authority for the 
     budget accounts or portions thereof in the highway and 
     transit categories as defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and 
     (C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985 in excess of the following amounts:
       (1) for fiscal year 2004: $41,569,000,000,
       (2) for fiscal year 2005: $42,657,000,000,
       (3) for fiscal year 2006: $43,635,000,000,
       (4) for fiscal year 2007: $45,709,000,000,
       (5) for fiscal year 2008: $46,945,000,000, or
       (6) for fiscal year 2009: $47,732,000,000,
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2004, 
     for fiscal year 2005, and for the period of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to the extent such excess is offset by a 
     reduction in mandatory outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or 
     an increase in receipts appropriated to such fund for the 
     applicable fiscal year caused by such legislation or any 
     previously enacted legislation.

[[Page 5268]]

       (b) Adjustment for Outlays.--For fiscal year 2004 or 2005, 
     in the House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or 
     if an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report 
     thereon is submitted, that changes obligation limitations 
     such that the total limitations are in excess of 
     $40,116,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 or $41,204,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005 for programs, projects, and activities 
     within the highway and transit categories as defined in 
     sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and if legislation has 
     been enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in 
     subsection (a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation of 
     outlays and appropriate aggregates for such fiscal year for 
     the committee reporting such measure by the amount of outlays 
     that corresponds to such excess obligation limitations, but 
     not to exceed the amount of such excess that was offset 
     pursuant to subsection (a).

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported 
     in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation 
     or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an 
     amendment thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
       (b) Limitation.--In the House, an advance appropriation may 
     be provided for fiscal year 2006 or 2007 for programs, 
     projects, activities or accounts identified in the joint 
     explanatory statement of managers accompanying this 
     resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for 
     Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed 
     $23,568,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (c) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2005 that first 
     becomes available for any fiscal year after 2005.

     SEC. 402. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

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

     SEC. 403. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

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

     SEC. 404. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

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

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

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

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

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the concurrent resolution 
is in order except the amendments printed in House Report 108-446. Each 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate which shall 
not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

[[Page 5269]]

  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 108-446.


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

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

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

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

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

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,492,715,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,656,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,760,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,857,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,963,833,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $15,581,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,554,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,224,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $12,069,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,773,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,040,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,099,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,221,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,338,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,457,855,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,022,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,111,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,196,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,303,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,419,950,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: -$529,554,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$455,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$436,814,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$445,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$456,117,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $8,066,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,645,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,204,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,770,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,351,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,754,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,030,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,272,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,507,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,739,000,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2005 through 2009 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $408,486,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $439,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $430,694,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $428,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $451,728,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $434,219,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $473,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $453,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $494,923,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $473,956,000,000.
       (2) Homeland Security (100):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,552,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,902,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,421,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,628,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,478,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,264,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,148,000,000.
       (3) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,329,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,282,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,745,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,064,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,925,000,000.
       (4) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,936,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,691,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,051,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,752,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,283,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,872,000,000.
       (5) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,397,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,583,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,629,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,285,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $891,000,000.
       (6) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,460,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,147,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,368,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,056,000,000.
       (7) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,534,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,354,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,112,000,000.
       (8) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,242,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,842,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,190,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,740,000,000.
       (9) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,069,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,554,000,000.
       (10) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,906,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:

[[Page 5270]]

       (A) New budget authority, $12,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,725,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,122,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,860,000,000.
       (11) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $111,283,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $112,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $111,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $113,191,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $113,781,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $114,504,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $113,755,000,000.
       (12) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $246,371,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $245,453,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $253,921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $253,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $266,377,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $286,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $285,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $305,336,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $304,756,000,000.
       (13) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,126,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,974,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $322,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $363,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $387,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,278,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $413,853,000,000.
       (14) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $343,018,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $345,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $341,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $343,990,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $345,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $348,565,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $358,595,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $360,817,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,645,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $369,265,000,000.
       (15) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,094,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,589,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,049,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,049,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,989,000,000.
       (16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,264,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,211,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,401,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,942,000,000.
       (17) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,874,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,174,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,663,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,232,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,377,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,525,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,388,000,000.
       (18) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,198,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,419,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,075,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,044,000,000.
       (19) Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,331,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,331,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $317,882,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $317,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $362,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $396,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $396,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $424,487,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $424,487,000,000.
       (20) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $--.
       (B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $--.
       (B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $--.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $--.
       (B) Outlays, $250,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,349,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-52,475,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$62,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$63,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$65,485,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,856,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,893,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am proud to introduce the Congressional Black Caucus 2005 fiscal 
year budget alternative. Our theme and philosophy for the CBC 2005 
budget alternative is ``Investing in America's Future, Restoring Fiscal 
Responsibility and Fulfilling Our Shared Sacrifice.''
  Before we begin, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis), and all the Congressional Black Caucus members on 
the Committee on the Budget and the entire Congressional Black Caucus 
for their diligent work in putting this budget together. The 
Congressional Black Caucus thought it vitally important that we provide 
a Federal budget that goes to the center of people's lives.
  Contrary to the rosy picture painted by the President, the majority 
of Americans are hurting under the Bush administration's fiscal 
policies.
  Over 40 million Americans are without health insurance. Almost 9 
million Americans woke up this morning without a job, and thousands of 
those individuals have become discouraged by the stagnant economy and 
have given up looking for work. Most alarming, Mr. Chairman, the 
American dream of a quality education remains out of reach for millions 
of children and families. The Congressional Black Caucus budget 
alternative answers all of these pressing issues and at the same time 
places our Nation back on the path of fiscal responsibility and 
accountability.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just to start off the debate, we are obviously very interested in 
hearing what the Congressional Black Caucus has to offer. While we may 
disagree on the specifics, the caucus has almost every year provided 
its full alternative budget. As the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, I respect the fact

[[Page 5271]]

that they would do so. I am going to oppose it, I respectfully oppose 
it; but I certainly appreciate the fact that the caucus would come 
forth with a full budget proposal. We look forward to hearing the 
debate as a proponent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott), distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget is 
committed to making America more secure by investing in our homeland 
security, equipping our troops, and caring for our veterans. It also 
adds to our security by funding initiatives such as the COPS program, 
local law enforcement block grants, and juvenile crime prevention 
programs. The CBC alternative builds for America's future and addresses 
domestic challenges our country faces. It fully funds No Child Left 
Behind, provides funds for school construction, and increases funding 
for other education and job-training programs. The CBC alternative also 
provides funding for the minority health initiative, health insurance 
for the uninsured, supports child nutrition programs, funds job 
creation programs under the SBA, and extends unemployment insurance 
benefits.
  The funding for these important domestic needs comes from two 
sources: one, a reduction in the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for 
individuals whose gross income exceeds approximately $200,000; and the 
closing of tax loopholes, abusive shelters, and methods of tax 
avoidance. These funds total an estimated $35.5 billion in fiscal year 
2005 and are used for the domestic spending and deficit reduction parts 
of the budget.
  The funding for urgent homeland security needs, veterans programs and 
benefits, and additional support for the troops in Iraq comes from two 
sources: a $9.2 billion reduction in ballistic missile defense and $3.6 
billion from instances of fraud, waste and abuse within the Department 
of Defense such as defense contractor overcharges. Some of these funds 
have been reallocated to protect our troops in Iraq by providing them 
with bulletproof vests, vehicle armor, personal support equipment, 
night-vision goggles and radio jammers to protect personnel and 
vehicles from improvised explosive devices.
  Another portion of these funds is allocated to address vital homeland 
security needs, including rail and port security grants, cargo 
screening equipment, first responders, communications systems for first 
responders, Federal air marshals, and the Centers for Disease Control. 
The remainder of these funds are used to restore cuts in veterans 
health care and provide enhanced benefits to our veterans in survivor 
benefits, medical and prosthetic research, long-term care, mental 
health care and GI bill benefits. The alternative budget also 
eliminates the disabled veterans tax. We believe that the sum of all of 
these initiatives will make us more secure as a Nation.
  At the same time that we invest in America and our future, the CBC 
alternative recognizes that we cannot place the burden of our choices 
on our children and grandchildren. A top priority of the CBC is to 
address the exploding deficit. The CBC alternative budget therefore 
reduces the deficit by $70 billion compared to the House majority's 
budget over the next 5 years. This fiscal responsibility is rewarded 
with a reduction of $8 billion in interest payments over that same 
period of time compared to the House majority's budget. Members of the 
CBC have worked tirelessly to create a budget that is fiscally 
responsible and recognizes the needs of the American people. It is a 
sound budget that protects and promotes the best interests of America.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. Majette).
  Ms. MAJETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this substitute with my 
colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus. In crafting this 
alternative budget, we were faced with the reality that the President's 
fiscal policies of the last 4 years have squandered the surplus and 
pushed the debt sky high. We find ourselves with a pressing need to 
reduce the deficit now. We owe it to our children and grandchildren. 
Therefore, what this budget alternative does is to allocate our limited 
national resources to our shared national priorities. This is a budget 
that every Member of this body can support. Those programs receiving 
increased funding in this budget are truly shared priorities that 
address our Nation's biggest challenges.

                              {time}  1200

  The first challenge that our Nation faces is the lack of an available 
job for every willing worker, and Chairman Greenspan testified that we 
are graduating too few skilled workers and that our students are 
languishing at a low skill level. That is why the largest increase in 
spending in this budget over the Republican bill is in education.
  First and foremost, the CBC budget would fully fund No Child Left 
Behind at the authorized level. In addition, this budget devotes 
additional resources to Head Start, IDEA, Pell grants, and job training 
programs. This budget also stimulates our economy by funding vital 
programs that help small businesses, including the Small Business 
Administration's 7(a) program, microloans, and the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership. It is essential that we assist small businesses 
in their efforts to create more jobs. The CBC budget offsets this 
additional funding by repealing the tax cuts for Americans making over 
$200,000 a year and by closing corporate loopholes.
  The second priority realized in the CBC budget is need to provide for 
a strong national defense and to support our troops and veterans. The 
CBC budget provides money to better armor the Humvees that carry our 
troops and to buy body armor for every soldier in the field, and it 
keeps our promises to our veterans. We will continue to care for them, 
and this budget allocates almost $9 billion in additional funding above 
what the Republican majority would devote to our veterans.
  These defense, homeland security, and veterans assistance priorities 
will be paid for simply by redirecting funds from the failed missile 
defense system and by recouping money that Halliburton has overcharged 
the American taxpayers.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of the CBC budget 
as it reduces the deficit today and meets our most pressing needs while 
protecting us for the future.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the chairman for his 
leadership. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his 
leadership in working to make a budget, presenting to this body a real 
and progressive alternative for us.
  Mr. Chairman, during this debate and also for many weeks now, we have 
made a clear case for why and how the Republican budget sacrifices our 
children, our seniors, our security, our environment, our economy. They 
do this in order to advance special interest, money interest, and to 
promote tax breaks for the wealthy. The Republican budget does not 
fulfill our most fundamental requirement of providing for the common 
defense; the Congressional Black Caucus budget does. $9 billion for 
ballistic missile defense does not provide for that defense. It diverts 
terribly scarce resources into a program that really does not meet our 
own most urgent security needs and probably will not work anyway.
  Let us be clear, ballistic missile defense would not have prevented 
September 11, and the approach taken in the Republican budget will not 
prevent its recurrence.
  The CBC alternative budget more than fulfills our fundamental 
requirement of providing for the common defense. Instead of continuing 
to give Halliburton a license to steal, that is about $3 million a 
year, our budget furthers our commitment to our veterans

[[Page 5272]]

who are returning home from war, and they deserve the economic security 
and health care that they were promised. Instead of throwing billions 
of dollars, billions of good money, on a bad missile defense system, 
our budget invests in our own security by giving increased homeland 
security resources, job training, health care, education, housing. We 
have a budget that provides for housing and education, HIV/AIDS 
services and prevention, and foreign aid.
  So I am very proud to support this budget which invests in our future 
rather than bankrupting our children. That is the choice really that we 
have today. So I urge all Members to support this budget.
  And, again, I congratulate the Congressional Black Caucus for their 
fine work.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the CBC substitute because it 
steps up to the needs of key education programs.
  The Republican budget includes meager increases for important 
programs like No Child Left Behind; the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA; and Pell grant funding. Without the additional 
funding provided by the CBC budget, these programs cannot serve 
eligible students who are relying on them, relying on them for the 
education they need, the education they deserve to become self-
sufficient adults who contribute to America.
  The Republican budget proposal shortchanges No Child Left Behind by 
$9.4 billion. It does not come close to meeting the Federal promise to 
fund 40 percent of the costs of IDEA, and it shortchanges the 5.3 
million low-income college students who rely on Pell grants to access 
their higher education training. The CBC budget improves funding for 
all of these programs without increasing the Federal deficit like the 
Republican budget would.
  The CBC budget adds up for all Americans, and I urge my colleagues to 
adopt it.
  The Republican budget includes only meager increases for important 
programs like No Child Left Behind, the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA), and Pell grant funding.
  Without the additional funding provided in the CBC budget, these 
programs cannot serve eligible students who are relying on them for the 
education they need and deserve to become self-sufficient adults who 
contribute to America.
  The Republican budget proposal shortchanges No Child Left Behind by 
$9.4 billion; it doesn't come close to meeting the Federal promise to 
fund 40 percent of the cost of IDEA; and it shortchanges the 5.3 
million low-income college students who rely on Pell grants to access 
higher education.
  The CBC budget improves funding for these programs without increasing 
the Federal deficit like the Republican budget does.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time. And I also want to commend the Congressional 
Black Caucus for putting together this budget, a budget which 
recognizes that reentry of individuals coming out of correctional 
institutions as one of the great needs and one of the great problems 
that exist in our society.
  Unfortunately, the President's budget takes away from justice 
programs that would facilitate the reentry of these individuals. The 
Congressional Black Caucus budget restores those programs to help the 
640,000 people who come out of jails and prisons each year to find 
their way back into meaningful participation in society. And for that 
reason I strongly support the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I have always been told that budgets are a way of 
expressing one's positions and priorities in real dollars and cents; 
therefore, when we look at the Bush budget, one experiences mixed 
emotions, emotions that suggest concurrence that we need a strong 
defense budget, we need serious resources to fight terror and we do 
indeed need to provide for Homeland Security.
  However, as we fight the war against terrorism, we also need to fight 
against illiteracy, poverty, hunger, malnutrition, poor health, 
inadequate housing, and environmental protection. We need to try and 
make sure that there is money to tackle correction reform, money to 
make education, rehabilitation and training viable in parts of our 
correctional system. We need money to help re-integrate ex-offenders 
back into normal life, otherwise, we keep sending them back to prison, 
thereby, costing the taxpayers money. Monies we should not have to 
spend especially, when we help them to become self-sufficient.
  During the State of the Union Address in January, President Bush 
said, ``600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into 
society'' this year, and these Americans are in need of help. Many of 
these individuals are never able to find a decent place to live; cannot 
access various entitlement programs such as public housing, Pell 
grants, and, in some instances, food stamps; and are oftentimes denied 
employment because of their past criminal convictions. There is little 
wonder that 52 percent of these individuals end up back in jail. 
President Bush articulated the need for education, job training and 
housing well when he said ``America is the land of second chance, and 
when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a 
better life.''
  The Republican's budget cuts criminal justice and crime control 
programs for fiscal year 2005 by $494 million and continues to increase 
cuts for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 by $4.2 billion. I am concerned 
about the Republican's budget not adequately addressing certain issues 
within the criminal justice system that pertain to the Justice 
Assistance Grant Program which is cut by $468 million, Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grant Program cut by $219 million, Department of 
Justice reentry program to help facilitate individuals with felony 
convictions back into normal community life is cut by $300 million and 
the Edward Byrne Memorial grant programs used to fight drugs in our 
communities is cut by $477 million. This budget plan is unfair, unjust 
and fiscally irresponsible. It shortchanges the domestic needs of our 
country.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and chair of the 
Asian-Pacific Caucus.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the CBC for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the 
House Republican budget resolution and a hardy support for the 
Congressional Black Caucus's alternative budget.
  As a former teacher and a principal, I understand how important 
quality education is for all Americans. Unfortunately, the Republican 
budget fails to fund this national priority of public education. 
Republicans leave the No Child Left Behind Act $9.4 billion short of 
promised levels. They shortchange the title I funding by $7.2 billion, 
denying nearly 5 million disadvantaged children of educational 
services. The Republican budget freezes the maximum Pell grants for the 
third year in a row, while college tuitions continue to rise.
  However, on the other hand, the CBC budget fully funds the No Child 
Left Behind Act, fully funding the promise Congress made to our 
Nation's schools. The CBC alternative also funds school construction to 
provide safe and quality learning environments.
  Mr. Chairman, our national budget should be like our family budget, a 
reflection of our priorities and values. It should be a budget based on 
making the right choices. Do we make room for more expensive tax cuts 
or provide quality education for our Nation's students?
  I believe our choice is clear. Please support the CBC's alternative 
budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First and foremost, let me say that obviously we do not agree with 
some of the facts and figures laid out by my friends on the other side 
in their criticism of not only the Republican budget, which is the base 
bill here, but also the President's budget.
  Mr. Chairman, be that as it may, in good comity with my colleagues, I 
ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the

[[Page 5273]]

gentleman from Maryland would now have 17\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith) for a statement.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa 
for yielding me this time.
  I think we have got to be very careful about increasing taxes. There 
are so many needs out there that it is easy to suggest that we should 
spend more money. But reflecting on the actuaries' report that came out 
the day before yesterday for Social Security and Medicare it is bad 
news. They are now suggesting that if we do not deal with these 
unfunded liabilities, where the promises are over and above the 
revenues coming in, we have a future that is going to be very 
disastrous and complicated.
  Their estimate is that in 15 years, it is going to take 28 percent of 
our current general fund budget to cover the difference between the 
taxes coming in for Social Security and Medicare and what is needed to 
fulfill the promises we have made. In 25 years, it is going to take 
over 50 percent of the general fund budget, to cover those two 
programs.
  We cannot just continue to increase taxes. We have to start 
controlling the growth in government and the amount of revenue we are 
taking out of the pockets of the American people.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the first vice chair of the Congressional 
Black Caucus.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman for yielding me this time.
  Let me just say to my good friend that the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget is based upon shared sacrifice. In fact, we do provide 30.5 
billion in additional program dollars, but we also provide nearly $5 
billion towards deficit reduction, shared sacrifice, Mr. Chairman.
  Let me just say this. We realize that we have to protect the most 
vulnerable. So we protect the child care tax credit, the elimination of 
the marriage penalty, and the 10 percent tax bracket, but what we do 
say is that we rescind the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 to those making 
more than $200,000. That is shared sacrifice.
  What I am concerned about is, we provide $2.4 billion for homeland 
security and we give $900 million to first responders and COPS 
programs. Does anybody realize that we are closing six fire stations in 
New York City? Does anybody realize the burden that is being placed on 
police and fire in our local communities who are not being reimbursed 
when they elevate the threat level?
  We are giving to the veterans $8.7 billion so that the veterans 
hospitals like the ones included in my district can remain open and 
provide care for those making $30,000 and above. And, yes, having 
received the National Urban League's Black Progress and the complexity 
of Black Progress, we are trying to cut into the unequal education 
system that shows that 52 percent of African Americans are beneath 
those in the white community.
  It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we have shared sacrifice. I rise 
to support the Congressional Black Caucus budget because it provides a 
roadmap for America.


                         fiscal responsibility

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


                       offsets to create revenue

  Rescinds tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for individuals making more than 
$200,00 in gross income.
  Raises further revenue by closing tax loopholes, abusive shelters, 
and methods of tax avoidance.
  CBC Budget protects the child-care tax credit, the elimination of the 
marriage penalty and the 10 percent tax bracket.
  Reduces funding for the Ballistic Missile Defense program.


                               education

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


                           homeland security

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


                                veterans

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

                              {time}  1215

  Americans deserve to have a President who looks out for the interests 
of the Nation as a whole, not just for the elite few.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is not adequate to 
meet the needs of 25 million of our Nation's finest individuals. 
President Bush needs to start walking the walk if he is going to talk 
the talk. Wearing a flight suit and landing on a carrier does not take 
care of the needs of former and current members of our Nation's 
military.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, we are supported tremendously by the 
Hispanic Caucus and certainly the Asian Pacific Caucus, and we are very 
pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the distinguished 
chairperson of the Black Caucus, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings), for yielding me this time; and I rise to support the 
alternative Progressive Caucus and Black Caucus budget that is before 
us today.
  The Republican majority refuses to finance priorities that are most 
important to working families in America. They lack any support for 
guaranteed health care, jobs, and a clean environment. The House 
Republican budget will severely damage our Nation's health care system 
by cutting $2.2 billion over the next 5 years in Medicaid and SCHIP 
programs; and in my State of California, 6.5 million people will be 
affected by those cuts. Mr. Chairman, 51 million Americans currently 
rely on the Medicaid program.
  While President Bush has been in office, in fact, we have lost over 3 
million jobs. In my district alone, we lost 20,000. This Republican 
budget denies an opportunity to provide jobs, 500,000 new jobs in 
infrastructure development. And on top of that, they cut back on EPA 
funding 7 percent across the board. That means dirty water, dirty air, 
and a dirty environment.
  This Progressive and Black Caucus budget fully funds Leave No Child 
Behind, it doubles Federal funding for Historically Black Colleges and 
Hispanic Serving Institutions, it increases

[[Page 5274]]

Pell grants to college students, and it increases funding for the COPS 
program, community policing grants. The Republican budget ignores the 
needs of working families.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Progressive and 
Black Caucus alternative budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, this is an instructive debate, and the 
debates that we will have throughout the day and on into the evening 
will be instructive because they will point up the stark differences in 
the two philosophies which exist here in this House of Representatives 
and in this Congress.
  I oppose the CBC budget because it increases spending by almost $30 
billion in the first year. In the face of this increased spending, it 
proposes to reduce the deficit. Now, how does it do that? It does so by 
increasing taxes by over $35.5 billion in the first year.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House for 10 years. Previous 
to that, in the early 1980s, I was a staffer here for the House of 
Representatives. I am proud to have served here in both capacities. It 
is okay to have differences in philosophy. That is what makes democracy 
count, and it is a good thing. This substitute and this debate today 
does point out the difference that I have seen over time.
  If we look down through history and if we look at all of the debates 
that we will have today, basically, when the Democrats propose a 
budget, they propose increased spending and increased taxes. When the 
Republicans propose a budget, we try to hold the line on spending, as 
this budget does, and to have a lower tax burden on the American 
people; and this debate today will point that out very, very 
distinctly.
  Now, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention, Mr. Chairman, to 
a couple of charts. The Republican majority, since fiscal year 1996, 
has certainly been generous with those Departments that we have tried 
to invest in: a 156 percent increase in education spending, a 109 
percent increase in HHS spending, a 48 percent increase in defense 
spending. Then, one area that is particularly near and dear to my 
heart--the NIH--the National Institutes of Health, during this 
Republican Congress, we have doubled the investment in research and 
health; and then even after we did that, we increased the investment a 
little more. So we have, I think, been very generous. But for some 
people in this House, and some people in this town, there is never 
enough spending. I submit there is just a point where we have to draw 
the line, we are going to try to be reasonable in what we have spent, 
and being generous ought to be enough.
  We are coming out of recession, Mr. Chairman. At a time when we are 
coming out of recession, the last thing we need to do is to do what 
this substitute asks, and that is to raise taxes on the American 
people. Please vote ``no'' on this substitute.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, a lot of us on the Congressional 
Black Caucus and a lot of us who sit on this side of the aisle are used 
to being called ``tax and spend liberals.'' It is a mantra that our 
friends on the other side throw around a lot. I do not know about the 
gentleman from Maryland, but if it makes you a liberal to stand for 
full funding for No Child Left Behind, and if it makes you a liberal to 
stand up for a revitalized Federal commitment to Medicaid, if it makes 
you a liberal to care about the plight of some of our children and some 
people who are living in public housing, I know some of us who are 
willing to wear that tag.
  We hear a lot of talk during this debate about the tough choices that 
the Republican majority want to make. I have heard a lot of speakers 
come to the well of this House and say, we have to be courageous, we 
have to make these tough spending cuts.
  I do not think it is courageous, I say to the gentleman, to cut $5 
billion over the next 5 years in income subsistence programs at a time 
when so many children are falling back into poverty. I do not think it 
is courageous to cut $1 billion from Medicaid when States like my State 
and the gentleman's State are struggling to draw down the limited 
Federal dollars that are available. I do not think it is courageous to 
pare back benefits for veterans. I am so tired, as I know the gentleman 
from Maryland is, of what is cold blooded being passed off as 
courageous on the floor of this House.
  We do need a different set of priorities for America. And all of the 
Democratic budgets today, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, the 
Blue Dog budget, and the Democratic Caucus budget, have one thing in 
common: we make tough fiscal choices. We try to get a handle on this 
deficit, and we do it on the firmest foundations of our American 
values.
  It may very well be that we are vulnerable to the allegation that we 
are walking away from tax cuts for some; but some of us on this side of 
the aisle are willing to walk away from tax cuts for millionaires, 
because I close on this reality: the middle-income Americans in this 
country are getting about $217 a year out of this tax cut. The average 
person in my district is getting between $25 and $40 a month. This tax 
cut that our friends and our adversaries embrace so wholeheartedly 
disproportionately favors those who are already powerful.
  In conclusion, their budget does not speak to the best of our values. 
Our budget does, and I encourage all of our Democrats today to support 
all three of these budgets.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, as I said in our opening, I respect the 
fact that we are putting our values on the table. I have enormous 
respect for that. But let me just at least respond to the gentleman 
with regard to what he just said about taxes.
  Most provisions that they are talking about, that they talk about as 
being tax cuts for the rich or tax increases on the rich, we have to 
remember that the bracket they are talking about, 90 percent of small 
businesses, which are the job creators in my district, in Manchester, 
Iowa, and it is true for all small businesses; small businesses owned 
by women, small businesses owned by minorities, small businesses all 
together, are paying this top rate, and 80 percent of the increase on 
taxes on this top rate would be borne by small businesses. Two-thirds 
of the income tax filers in the top income tax bracket have small 
business income. If we want to create jobs, why would we tax the job 
creators? That is what we are talking about.
  And I respect the fact my Democrat colleagues admit they are taxers 
and spenders, but do not tax the job creators.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis) to respond.
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, let me say this to the esteemed 
chair of the committee: 36 percent of small business owners in this 
country will get virtually no tax relief under this bill. The 
overwhelming majority of sole proprietors will only get very small 
relief under this bill. We can talk all we want to about the tax cuts. 
The reality is that for small business owners, it will have very little 
impact.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to applaud our chairman, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Chairman Cummings), and also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for this budget. I join them and my colleagues in strong 
opposition to the Republican budget.
  On November 6 of last year, we introduced the Health Care Equality 
and Accountability Act of 2003 with the Democratic leadership in this 
House and the Senate. Today I am here to assure my colleagues that that 
was not just a message bill. The CBC budget seeks to meet the needs of 
people of color in this country, the health care needs, as well as 
other needs, who have been left behind for so long.

[[Page 5275]]

  Mr. Chairman, giving taxes breaks to the wealthy cannot be a priority 
of this country when our people are sick, disabled, and dying and do 
not have access to healing and lifesaving care. So our budget 
reauthorizes funds to the Office of Minority Health, the Indian Health 
Service, Health Professions and other programs that reach out to and 
bring wellness to our communities. It supports our teaching and safety 
net hospitals and other facilities, and fully funds Medicaid.
  This is not increasing taxes; this is stopping corporate giveaways, 
giveaways to the wealthy, and investing in the strength of this 
country: our people.
  Dr. Martin Luther King said, ``Of all forms of inequality, injustice 
in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' We agree. And with 
the CBC budget, we continue our work to correct that injustice, to 
restore health as a right, and to heal America.
  We urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, once again the CBC budget makes education 
the highest priority. We are requesting an increase of $18.5 billion 
for education funding. The CBC understands that at the heart of our 
efforts to improve homeland security, at the heart of our efforts for 
leadership in the world, at the heart of our efforts to improve the 
economy is education. Everybody always seems to forget that.
  The CBC is the only alternative budget, for example, with funds for 
school construction. This Congress blindly continues to ignore the need 
for school construction, school modernization, and school repairs.
  This administration proposes to spend billions of dollars to build 
schools in Iraq, while it has placed zero in the budget to build public 
schools here in America. Nearly every Member of Congress has one 
outrageous situation in their district, at least, where there is a 
great obvious need for school repair, school modernization, or school 
construction; every Member beyond the Congressional Black Caucus 
members.
  There is a lot of hypocrisy in the Republican position on school 
construction. There is an argument that the Federal Government should 
not be involved in school construction. On the other hand, there is 
some money in this budget for the construction of charter schools. 
Charter schools are an exception because, ideologically, this 
administration agrees with that.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget because it is the only budget which understands that for 
homeland security and for all we want to do in America, education must 
come first.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I too rise to oppose this Republican 
budget. My concerns are the tax cuts and the costs that our citizens 
will face because of them.
  This budget ignores the needs of many of the folks that work in the 
petrochemical industry, particularly of Southeast, but of any 
manufacturing activity on any waterway in our country.
  Cutting taxes and government spending foolishly ignores maintenance 
of some of our highways of commerce for many industries, and even our 
military. This budget provides half the amount needed to keep our 
navigable waterways open.
  Recently, one of the channels in my district shoaled up and caused 
ships to begin to hit bottom and, therefore, having to lighten their 
loads. The ship traffic increased going to the plants. It began to cost 
not only the Coast Guard more to protect them, but also the plants 
themselves were losing significant profits. One company was paying 
$75,000 a day. That, too, could be considered a tax of us not doing our 
business in the right way.

                              {time}  1230

  This budget lowers the Corps of Engineers' budget from 72 percent of 
its needs to 50 percent of its needs. And the Corps is now notifying 
these companies using those ship channels that they are going to be 
facing even additional operating costs if Congress does not provide the 
money to keep our water highways open. And that is the same thing that 
we will be facing as a military as we, through strategic ports 
including the one I just spoke of with the shoaling, does not have the 
ability to send the equipment to Iraq for our young men and women who 
are fighting diligently there on our behalf.
  These are some of the reasons why this needs to be reconsidered. What 
logic can there be behind cutting our ability to grow our economy by 
cutting our own infrastructure? Let us get our fiscal house in order so 
that working families and our Nation's security do not become the 
casualty of this budget debate.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to simply thank many people who 
worked on this, including certainly the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) who has spent a phenomenal amount of time on this along with the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. 
Majette), and others who have just for the last month or so spent 
countless hours.
  I also want to take the time out to recognize our staff, certainly 
Paul Brathwaite, the policy director of the Congressional Black Caucus, 
Lee Perselay and Alana Fisher, Michael Goodman and Norman Meyer, and so 
many others who gave so much of their time, their blood, their sweat, 
and their tears because they want to see a better budget and they want 
to see America do better.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, at this juncture, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time. I also thank the chairman of the committee for his 
consideration in yielding us time.
  The Congressional Black Caucus alternative is committed to making 
America more secure. It invests in homeland security, especially for 
Federal air marshals, CDC, port security grants. It equips our troops 
with such equipment as reinforced trucks to protect from the landmines, 
the radio jammers that protect from long distance bombing. It also 
protects our veterans. The underlying budget includes an increase in 
veterans health, but unfortunately not enough of an increase in 
veterans health to maintain present services.
  The veterans committee has indicated that $2.5 million is necessary. 
This, the underlying budget, does not include $2.5 million. Our budget 
does. It adds to security with COPS, local police on the beat, law 
enforcement block grants, juvenile crime prevention. It invests in our 
future. No Child Left Behind is fully funded in the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget.
  We provide school construction funds, health initiative and job 
creation programs. The economic policy of this administration has 
failed and lost 3 million jobs. You cannot blame that on 9-11 because 
you have to go back to Harry Truman, past the Korean War, past the 
Vietnam War, past the last Persian Gulf War to find an administration 
with a 3 million job loss.
  This budget invests in job creation. I will admit we have to make 
some tough choices. Those with incomes over $200,000 may not enjoy a 
continuation of the tax cuts under the original budget. But those are 
the tough choices made. And we have priorities. Do we fund missile 
defense, or do we fund port security grants? These are the tough 
choices that are made.
  After we have made those tough choices, we look up and have a deficit

[[Page 5276]]

$70 billion lower compared to the Republican budget, $8 billion 
reduction in interest payments alone.
  This is a fiscally responsible budget. It invests in the appropriate 
values of the Nation, and I would hope that it would be the pleasure of 
the House to adopt the CBC budget.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) 
has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 3\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I too want to thank the chairman of the committee for yielding and 
giving us the additional 10 minutes. We really appreciate it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. I have no further speakers other than myself and I belive 
I have the right to close and so I am prepared to close when the 
gentleman is.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time, I am closing now.
  Mr. Chairman, again, we thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said it and the members of 
Congressional Black Caucus said it quite well. What we are addressing 
here and the reason we called our budget ``Investing in America While 
Ensuring Fiscal Responsibility'' is that we believe very strongly in a 
balanced budget. We believe very strongly that we must address the 
issues of terrorism. It is very significant and very important to us. 
But at the same time, we do believe that we need to take care of 
Americans right here at home.
  Many of our members in the Congressional Black Caucus look at our 
schools, and we are extremely concerned. That is why we spent a 
phenomenal amount of time and put a lot of emphasis on No Child Left 
Behind to make sure that it is properly funded, because we want those 
children to have a future.
  I have often said that our children are the living messages we send 
to a future we will never see. We want to make sure they go into that 
future well educated, well prepared, and well ready to take on the many 
opportunities that will be before them. We also make sure that we 
secure funding for initiatives such as the COPS program because we 
realize that our neighborhoods have to be safe in order for people to 
live the best lives that they can.
  Again, we look at the budget from the standpoint of this, and it is a 
very simple thing, Mr. Chairman. It simply is that we have one life to 
live. This is no dress rehearsal, and this so happens to be that life. 
It is our belief that the balance that we have provided in our budget 
is a much better alternative than the budget that the other side has 
presented and the President's.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote for the Congressional Black 
Caucus' ``Investing in America While Ensuring Fiscal Responsibility'' 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first, as I did when I opened, I do very much respect 
the job that has been done by the Congressional Black Caucus in 
presenting a budget. It is very difficult to do that. I know that just 
because I have the responsibility of putting together the majority 
budget, and it is not an easy task. And so I appreciate the job that 
was done. We simply disagree, and we do so very respectfully.
  The title of the budget is ``Investing in America,'' and we just 
happen to believe that the best investors in America are Americans, not 
the government. We believe that individuals and families make much 
better decisions about spending their money than the government can for 
them. And so the reason why we believe that increasing taxes would be 
wrong or increasing spending at this time and the dramatic way that you 
go about that in your budget would just not be the right recipe at this 
time or the right blueprint as we move forward.
  A couple of things that I just want to point out to my colleagues who 
are coming over and getting ready to vote.
  The first is that the substitute offered by the Congressional Black 
Caucus raises taxes. It raises $35 billion of taxes in 2005 alone and 
$192 billion over 5 years. And the way that it raises taxes is on small 
business; and that is, in my estimation, the wrong recipe at the wrong 
time when our economy is just poised to begin job creation. Ninety 
percent of small businesses pay taxes at the rate that they want to 
increase. More than 80 percent of the increase in taxes on the top rate 
will be borne by small business. Two-thirds of the income tax filers in 
the top income tax rate have small business income.
  Small businesses represent more than 99 percent of all the employers 
in this country. And at the exact moment when the economy is poised 
after 6 months of the largest growth in 20 years, we cannot allow a tax 
increase to occur on those small businesses because they are the risk-
takers, the entrepreneurs, the innovators in America. It is not 
government.
  The innovation is happening outside of Washington, D.C., not inside 
the Beltway. And we need to encourage that.
  I also just want to mention that tax cuts are not to blame for 
everything. We have heard a lot of people come to the floor today 
claiming that tax cuts cause the deficit, that tax cuts are the bane of 
our existence. Let me remind you that tax cuts, as you can see here, 
represent this white area right above here. This white line. And tax 
cuts would not have gotten us into deficit. It is spending. It is 
spending. It is spending that gets us into deficit as well as a 
downturn in the economy.
  So two things that we cannot do, kill the economy or continue 
increases in spending. Second thing is that I believe the substitute 
spends too much money. Let me tell you what I mean by that.
  Even before you ask us to adopt your budget, look at the large 
increases of spending that we are talking about. So before anyone comes 
to the floor yet again today and says somehow that we are cutting this, 
we are cutting that, we are gouging this, we are gouging that, my 
goodness we are spending a lot of money out here. In fact, if you want 
to look at this a little different way, this is the bar chart way. In 
the last 3 years total growth has been 6 percent. That is enough. We 
have enough spending. We do not need new taxes.
  Please reject, respectfully, the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this resolution 
and in support of the Democratic and Congressional Black Caucus 
alternatives.
  You would think that after 3 years of Bush budgets and Bush tax cuts, 
there is enough evidence to suggest that the people who benefited from 
3 years of tax cuts are not producing jobs for the rest of working 
America. The sponsors of the Republican budget resolution look at 
economic growth and ignore stagnant job creation. That is why they try 
to convince working Americans to stay the course.
  In the last 3 years, similar budgets have cost the economy 3 million 
jobs. Unemployment in my State of Michigan stands at 6.6 percent, the 
second largest number of unemployed citizens in the country. 
Unemployment among African-Americans stands at 9.8 percent.
  Only 21,000 jobs were created in February, and not one was created by 
the private sector. If the economy continues to perform at last month's 
rate, it would take 9 years to recover all the jobs lost in the last 
three Bush budgets. This record would earn him the distinction of 
having the worst job creation record since the Great Depression.
  The Republican budget resolution does nothing about deficits. It 
produces deficits each and every year of the life of the resolution and 
beyond. The Republican budget provides no blueprint to bring the budget 
into balance, and this document refuses to show how large the deficits 
will be in the out years beyond 2009.
  Three years ago, the President told us we would see a $5.6 trillion 
surplus. He used that projection to justify $1.3 trillion in tax cuts. 
Now the surpluses have disappeared and if you project out 10 years to 
2014, the deficits

[[Page 5277]]

generated are estimated at $5.5 trillion. That is a swing of $10 
trillion in tax cuts. Now the surplus have disappeared and if you 
project out 10 years to 2014, the deficits generated are estimated at 
$5.5 trillion. That is a swing of $10 trillion. If tax cuts are 
appropriate when we have surpluses, why are they appropriate when we 
have record deficits?
  Three years ago, the Republican majority talked about putting Social 
Security and Medicare funds in a lock box. Now they are planning to 
spend the entire trillion dollar Social Security surplus from 2005 to 
2009. The price we are paying for the Bush tax cuts is ultimately the 
dismantling of Social Security and Medicare as we know it.
  With respect to education, the Republican budget underfunds No Child 
Left Behind by $8.8 billion, continuing the pattern of underfunding 
education programs. With 3.8 million women looking for work, the 
Republican budget does nothing to create good paying jobs or improve 
access to health care.
  That is the result of 3 years of Bush budgets, and we are promised 
more of the same.
  If the Republicans were serious about the deficit, they would come up 
with a new economic strategy. This Republican budget promises more of 
the same. If the administration and its allies in Congress were serious 
about the deficit, they would follow the 1990 PAYGO model to make it 
impossible to enact any revenue, mandatory spending, or tax expenditure 
legislation unless there was an offset. But PAYGO in this Congress 
would apply only to spending, not to revenues. That is not a serious 
attempt to cut the deficit.
  If you are satisfied with the job creation record of the last 3 
years, then vote for the Republican budget resolution. If you are 
satisfied with the course of the economy, then vote for the Republican 
budget resolution. If you are satisfied with the lack of wage growth, 
then vote for the Republican budget resolution. If you want more of the 
same, then vote for this Republican budget resolution.
  But if you want economic growth with job growth, look to the 
Democratic and CBC alternatives. If you really want to help school 
districts meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind, vote for the 
Democratic and CBC alternatives. If you want to protect Social Security 
and Medicare, vote for the Democratic and CBC alternatives. If you want 
to do something for veterans health care, vote for the Democratic and 
CBC alternatives.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
substitute amendment offered by Mr. Scott. This amendment would refocus 
our budget priorities back to where they should be during this time of 
war--to defeating terror and making America safer. This resolution 
would provide an additional $2\1/2\ billion for Homeland Security, with 
close to $1 billion of that amount going directly to our first 
responders--the fire, police, medical, and other emergency personnel 
who keep our neighborhoods safe. We've talked a lot over the past 
couple years about the new Homeland Security Department here in 
Washington. We need to remember that, in case of another attack on 
America, Homeland Security employees will not be the ones running into 
danger to save lives. Just as on September 11, it will be local 
paramedics, firefighters, police, and others. They deserve--we all 
deserve--to have Congress provide the resources to make sure they are 
prepared to protect us.
  This substitute also includes increased funding for veterans and for 
our troops in the field. At a time when American forces are at war, 
Congress should be focused on providing our soldiers with what they 
need, rather than focusing attention on what wealthy executives need. 
This substitute budget closes tax loopholes and uses those funds to pay 
for body armor for soldiers and armor for their vehicles. I cannot be 
prouder than to vote for an amendment that would both punish tax 
dodgers and protect our soldiers.
  But we need to focus not only on our current soldiers but also our 
former soldiers. I am proud to be supporting a substitute budget that 
provides adequate resources for veterans' health care. As we ask the 
men and women of the armed services to risk their lives for us, we need 
to show them that we will be there for them as they deal, in many cases 
for the rest of their lives, with injuries sustained in defense of the 
United States. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute budget, 
to make America's budget priorities match America's wartime needs.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H. 
Con. Res. 393, the Republican budget resolution. There are so many 
things wrong with this budget resolution and the President's budget 
request that I would not know how to even begin listing all of them. 
But I am especially concerned about how this budget hurts our Nation's 
low-income minority communities.
  Instead of providing adequate funding for job creation, healthcare, 
education, and housing, House Republicans have instead ignored or cut 
funding in these areas to finance the President's ill-conceived tax 
cuts to the wealthy.
  At a time when well over 3 million African-Americans and Hispanics 
are out of work, the President's budget proposes cuts to the Small 
Business Administration by $78 million, despite SBA's proven 
effectiveness in helping minority-owned businesses grow.
  On education, the President's budget is devastating to programs 
designed to help minority students gain an even footing. It freezes 
funding for bilingual education, cuts funding for Head Start, and 
eliminates Even Start and dropout prevention programs. Only 17 percent 
of African-Americans and 11 percent of Latinos have their college 
degrees, but this administration has frozen funding for Pell grants and 
cut funding for Perkins loans by nearly $100 million.
  The misled priorities do not stop there. According to top level 
officials of the administration, the President's budget underfunds the 
Department of Veterans Affairs by $1.2 billion and falls short on 
veterans' health benefits. Furthermore, for nonveterans, the budget 
does nothing to address skyrocketing healthcare costs of low-income 
individuals.
  Recklessly slashing or neglecting non-Homeland Security domestic 
discretionary spending, which comprises a mere one-sixth of the total 
budget, will not make a dent in the astronomical budget deficit that 
Republicans have proposed. That is why I support the substitute offered 
by the Congressional Black Caucus, which will not only restore funding 
to veterans and other domestic priorities, but also including funding 
for essential priorities such as local law enforcement, schools and job 
training.
  Mr. Chairman, we in this body have an obligation to represent all 
Americans, not just the wealthiest ones. For that reason, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing the Republican budget and supporting 
the CBC substitute, and if that fails, supporting the Democratic 
substitute, which is still vastly superior to the Republican 
resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate on this amendment in 
the nature of a substitute has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119, 
noes 302, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               AYES--119

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

                               NOES--302

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell

[[Page 5278]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--12

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1310

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


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

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hill), I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

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

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

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate levels for fiscal years 
     2006 through 2014 are hereby set forth.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation.
Sec. 202. Submission of report on defense savings.

                TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND ENFORCEMENT

                       Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

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

                        Subtitle B--Enforcement

Sec. 311. Point of order against certain legislation reducing the 
              surplus or increasing the deficit after fiscal year 2009.
Sec. 312. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 313. Discretionary spending limits in the house.
Sec. 314. Emergency legislation.
Sec. 315. Pay-as-you-go point of order in the House.
Sec. 316. Disclosure of effect of legislation on the public debt.
Sec. 317. Disclosure of interest costs.
Sec. 318. Dynamic scoring of tax legislation.
Sec. 319. Restrictions on advance appropriations.

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

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

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

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2014:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,466,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,643,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,776,224,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,867,910,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,976,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,095,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,293,633,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,472,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,605,505,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,747,823,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $10,360,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $10,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$21,280,000,000.

[[Page 5279]]

       Fiscal year 2008: -$22,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$23,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$31,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$12,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $14,000,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,962,161,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,064,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,190,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,294,184,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,424,272,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,521,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,645,018,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,721,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,846,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,972,679,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,981,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,075,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,166,368,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,259,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,386,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,497,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,626,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,695,976,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,827,312,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,952,585,000,000.
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: -$514,726,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$432,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$390,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$391,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$409,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$402,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$332,825,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$223,053,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$221,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$204,762,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $8,048,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,605,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,116,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,629,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,162,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,691,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $11,150,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,514,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $11,872,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $12,215,400,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,737,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $4,990,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,184,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,365,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,550,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $5,714,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $5,796,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $5,758,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $5,712,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $5,643,900,000,000.

     SEC. 102. HOMELAND SECURITY.

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

     SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2005 through 2014 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $422,157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $449,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $444,807,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $441,451,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $466,423,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,337,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $488,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $468,010,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $511,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $523,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $511,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $537,177,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $533,024,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $539,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $563,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $557,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $577,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $571,363,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,066,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,990,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,540,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,162,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,888,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,505,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,119,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,752,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,438,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,216,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,418,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,557,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,696,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,352,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,369,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,980,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,525,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,484,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,005,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,813,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,084,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,878,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,344,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $707,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,024,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,214,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $373,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,823,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,891,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,963,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $917,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,040,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $875,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,112,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,296,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,758,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,541,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,024,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,502,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,099,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,242,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,664,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,046,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,008,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,066,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,184,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,129,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,981,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,066,000,000.

[[Page 5280]]

       (B) Outlays, $23,941,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,126,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,985,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,980,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,963,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,142,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,888,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,031,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,677,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,457,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,944,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,485,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,106,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,084,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,279,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,191,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,317,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,375,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,693,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,941,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,861,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,370,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,492,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,791,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,265,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,290,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,188,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,165,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,999,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,950,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,462,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,433,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,565,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,872,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,159,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,542,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,750,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,036,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,993,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,109,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,198,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,961,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,177,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $101,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $104,292,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $103,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,398,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,176,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $251,941,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $249,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $271,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $271,154,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $289,795,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $312,044,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $309,527,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $332,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $332,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $356,257,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $355,680,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,311,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $381,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $410,737,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $409,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $441,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $440,241,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $287,855,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $288,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,663,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $322,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,525,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $362,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $387,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,018,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $413,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $442,208,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $442,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $478,799,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $478,801,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $504,733,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $504,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,143,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $550,427,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $595,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $595,863,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $338,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $342,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $336,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $340,057,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $341,053,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $343,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $352,262,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $354,584,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,266,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,864,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $375,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,160,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $392,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $392,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $382,492,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $396,417,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $396,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $407,234,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $408,043,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,801,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,139,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:

[[Page 5281]]

       (A) New budget authority, $19,505,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,993,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,995,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,739,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,603,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,604,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,456,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,521,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,552,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,138,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,208,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,732,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,275,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,822,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,933,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,601,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,501,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,022,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,174,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,776,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,052,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,375,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,939,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,324,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,847,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,852,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,088,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,710,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,262,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,359,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,852,000,000.
       (18) Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,012,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $316,698,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $316,698,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $359,828,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $359,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $390,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $390,726,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $416,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $416,367,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $439,593,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $439,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $459,207,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $459,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $475,986,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $475,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $488,534,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $488,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,137,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $502,137,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,853,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$287,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,813,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$301,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $699,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$316,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$324,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$324,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$334,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$351,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$351,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$357,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,505,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,505,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$59,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$61,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$64,532,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$62,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$61,150,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$62,745,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,552,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$65,222,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$66,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$67,820,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$70,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$71,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$72,881,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$73,765,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$75,135,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION.

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

     SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON DEFENSE SAVINGS.

       In the House, not later than May 15, 2004, the Committee on 
     Armed Services shall submit to the Committee on the Budget 
     its findings that identify $2,000,000,000 in savings from (1) 
     activities that are determined to be

[[Page 5282]]

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

                TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND ENFORCEMENT

                       Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

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

       (a) Reserve Fund.--In the House, if the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides new budget authority (and outlays 
     flowing therefrom) for the costs of military operations in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan, then the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget shall make the appropriate revisions to the 
     allocations and other levels in this resolution by an amount 
     not exceed $50,000,000,000 in new budget authority and the 
     resulting outlays.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should submit a supplemental request for 
     funding necessary for military and civilian operations in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the calendar year not 
     later than June 30, 2004.

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

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

     SEC. 303. ADJUSTMENT FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--If the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that provides new 
     budget authority for the budget accounts or portions thereof 
     in the highway and transit categories as defined in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 250(c)(4) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in 
     excess of--
       (1) for fiscal year 2005, $41,772,000,000; or
       (2) for fiscal years 2005 through 2009, $207,293,000,000;

     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2005 
     and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to the 
     extent such excess is offset by a reduction in mandatory 
     outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or an increase in 
     receipts appropriately made available to such Fund for the 
     applicable fiscal year caused by such legislation or 
     previously enacted legislation.
       (b) Adjustment for Outlays.--(1) For fiscal year 2005, in 
     the House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or if 
     an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report 
     thereon is submitted, that changes obligation limitations 
     such that the total limitations are in excess of 
     $40,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, for programs, projects, 
     and activities within the highway and transit categories as 
     defined in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 250(c)(4) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     and if legislation has been enacted that satisfies the 
     conditions set forth in subsection (a) for such fiscal year, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may increase the 
     allocation of outlays and appropriate aggregates for such 
     fiscal year for the committee reporting such measure by the 
     amount of outlays that corresponds to such excess obligation 
     limitations, but not to exceed the amount of such excess that 
     was offset in 2005 pursuant to subsection (a).
       (2) For fiscal year 2006, in the House, if a bill or joint 
     resolution is reported, or if an amendment thereto is offered 
     or a conference report thereon is submitted, that changes 
     obligation limitations such that the total limitations are in 
     excess of $40,621,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, for programs, 
     projects, and activities within the highway and transit 
     categories as defined in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 
     250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and if legislation has been enacted that 
     satisfies the conditions set forth in subsection (a) for such 
     fiscal year, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may 
     increase the allocation of outlays and appropriate aggregates 
     for such fiscal year for the committee reporting such measure 
     by the amount of outlays that corresponds to such excess 
     obligation limitations, but not to exceed the amount of such 
     excess that was offset in 2006 pursuant to subsection (a).

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

       In the House, notwithstanding section 311 of this 
     resolution, if the Committee on Ways and Means reports a bill 
     or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or 
     a conference report thereon is submitted, that makes the 
     provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 permanent, and if the chairman on 
     the Committee on the Budget certifies that the enactment of 
     such legislation would not cause or increase a unified budget 
     deficit in 2011 or any succeeding fiscal year covered by this 
     resolution, then the chairman on the Committee on the Budget 
     shall revise allocations to accommodate such legislation and 
     make other necessary adjustments.

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

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

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

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

                        Subtitle B--Enforcement

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

       It shall not be in order in the House to consider any bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that 
     includes any provision that first provides new budget 
     authority or a decrease in revenues for any fiscal year after 
     fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2014 that would decrease 
     the surplus or increase the deficit for any fiscal year.

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

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

     SEC. 313. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS IN THE HOUSE.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     to consider any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
     thereto, that provides new budget authority that would cause 
     the discretionary spending limits to be exceeded for any 
     fiscal year.
       (b) Discretionary Spending Limits.--In the House and as 
     used in this section, the term ``discretionary spending 
     limit'' means--
       (1) with respect to fiscal year 2005, for the discretionary 
     category: $____ in new budget authority and $____ in outlays;
       (2) with respect to fiscal year 2006, for the discretionary 
     category: $____ in new budget authority and $____ in outlays;
       (3) with respect to fiscal year 2007, for the discretionary 
     category: $____ in new budget authority and $____ in outlays;
     as adjusted in conformance with subsection (c).
       (c) Adjustments.--
       (1) In general.--

[[Page 5283]]

       (A) Chairman.--After the reporting of a bill or joint 
     resolution, the offering of an amendment thereto, or the 
     submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget may make the adjustments set 
     forth in subparagraph (B) for the amount of new budget 
     authority in that measure (if that measure meets the 
     requirements set forth in paragraph (2)) and the outlays 
     flowing from that budget authority. The chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may also make appropriate adjustments 
     for the reserve funds set forth in sections 201 and 202.
       (B) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) are to be made to--
       (i) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in 
     the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (ii) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (iii) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in the 
     appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (2) Amounts of adjustments.--The adjustment referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) an amount provided and designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 314;
       (B) an amount appropriated for military operations in Iraq 
     as provided in section 301; and
       (C) an amount provided for transportation under section 
     303.
       (3) Application of adjustments.--The adjustments made for 
     legislation pursuant to paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) apply while that legislation is under consideration;
       (B) take effect upon the enactment of that legislation; and
       (C) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (4) Application of this section.--The provisions of this 
     section shall apply to legislation providing new budget 
     authority for fiscal years 2003 through 2005.
       (d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--(1) It 
     shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to 
     consider a rule or order that waives the application of this 
     section.
       (2)(A) This subsection shall apply only to the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of 
     order under this section must specify the precise language on 
     which it is premised.
       (C) As disposition of points of order under this section, 
     the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
     respect to the proposition that is the subject of the points 
     of order.
       (D) A question of consideration under this section shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes by each Member initiating a point of 
     order and for 10 minutes by an opponent on each point of 
     order, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn or that the 
     Committee of the Whole rise, as the case may be.
       (E) The disposition of the question of consideration under 
     this subsection with respect to a bill or joint resolution 
     shall be considered also to determine the question of 
     consideration under this subsection with respect to an 
     amendment made in order as original text.

     SEC. 314. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

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

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

       (a) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House to 
     consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that 
     would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget 
     deficit for any one of the three applicable time periods as 
     measured in paragraphs (5) and (6).
       (2) Applicable time periods.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means any 1 
     of the 3 following periods:
       (A) The first year covered by the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (B) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the 
     most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (C) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5 
     fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget.
       (3) Direct-spending legislation.--For purposes of this 
     subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term 
     ``direct-spending legislation'' means any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report that affects 
     direct spending as that term is defined by, and interpreted 
     for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.
       (4) Exclusion.--For purposes of this subsection, the terms 
     ``direct-spending legislation'' and ``revenue legislation'' 
     do not include--
       (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (B) any provision of legislation that affects the full 
     funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance 
     guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of 
     the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990; or
       (C) any legislation for which an adjustment is made under 
     section 301.
       (5) Baseline.--Estimates prepared pursuant to this section 
     shall--
       (A) use the baseline surplus or deficit used for the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget as 
     adjusted for any changes in revenues or direct spending 
     assumed by such resolution; and
       (B) be calculated under the requirements of subsections (b) 
     through (d) of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for fiscal years beyond 
     those covered by that concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (6) Prior surplus.--If direct spending or revenue 
     legislation increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-
     budget deficit when taken individually, it must also increase 
     the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when 
     taken together with all direct spending and revenue 
     legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year 
     not

[[Page 5284]]

     accounted for in the baseline under paragraph (5)(A), except 
     that direct spending or revenue effects resulting in net 
     deficit reduction enacted pursuant to reconciliation 
     instructions since the beginning of that same calendar year 
     shall not be available.
       (b) Appeals.--Appeals in the House from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or 
     joint resolution, as the case may be.
       (c) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and 
     revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis 
     of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House.
       (d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--(1) It 
     shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to 
     consider a rule or order that waives the application of this 
     section.
       (2)(A) This subsection shall apply only to the House of 
     Representatives.
       (B) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of 
     order under this section must specify the precise language on 
     which it is premised.
       (C) As disposition of points of order under this section, 
     the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
     respect to the proposition that is the subject of the points 
     of order.
       (D) A question of consideration under this section shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes by each Member initiating a point of 
     order and for 10 minutes by an opponent on each point of 
     order, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn or that the 
     Committee of the Whole rise, as the case may be.
       (E) The disposition of the question of consideration under 
     this subsection with respect to a bill or joint resolution 
     shall be considered also to determine the question of 
     consideration under this subsection with respect to an 
     amendment made in order as original text.
       (e) Sunset.--This section shall expire on September 30, 
     2009.

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

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

     SEC. 317. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST COSTS.

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

     SEC. 318. DYNAMIC SCORING OF TAX LEGISLATION.

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

     SEC. 319. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported 
     in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation 
     or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an 
     amendment thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
       (b) Limitation.--In the House, an advance appropriation may 
     be provided for fiscal year 2006 or 2007 for programs, 
     projects, activities or accounts identified in the joint 
     explanatory statement of managers accompanying this 
     resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for 
     Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed 
     $23,568,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (c) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2005 that first 
     becomes available for any fiscal year after 2005.

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

     SEC. 321. INCREASE IN DEBT LIMIT.

       (a) Temporary Increase in Statutory Debt Limit.--The 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House shall report a bill 
     as soon as practicable, but not later than June 30, 2004, 
     that consists solely of changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction to increase the statutory debt limit by 
     $150,000,000,000.
       (b) Point of Order.--(1) Except as provided by subsection 
     (a) or paragraph (2), it shall not be in order in the House 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that includes any provision that increases 
     the limit on the public debt by more than $100,000,000,000.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the House if--
       (A) the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House has made the certification described in section 322 
     that the unified budget will be in balance by fiscal year 
     2012; or
       (B) the President has submitted to Congress a declaration 
     that such increase is necessary to finance costs of a 
     military conflict or address an imminent threat to national 
     security, but which shall not exceed the amount of the 
     adjustment under section 301 for the costs of military 
     operations in Iraq.

     SEC. 322. REVIEW OF BUDGET OUTLOOK.

       (a) In General.--If, in the report released pursuant to 
     section 202 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, entitled 
     the Budget and Economic Outlook Update (for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2014), the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office projects that the unified budget of the United States 
     for fiscal year 2012 will be in balance, then the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House is authorized to 
     certify that the budget is projected to meet the goals of a 
     balanced budget.
       (b) Calculating Discretionary Spending Baseline.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of 
     the Congressional Budget Office shall use the discretionary 
     spending levels set forth in this resolution, including any 
     adjustments to such levels as a result of the implementation 
     of any reserve funds set forth in this resolution to 
     calculate the discretionary spending baseline.

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

     SEC. 401. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

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

     SEC. 402. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TAX REFORM.

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

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

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) authorizing committees should actively engage in 
     oversight utilizing--
       (A) the plans and goals submitted by executive agencies 
     pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 
     1993; and
       (B) the performance evaluations submitted by such agencies 
     (that are based upon the Program Assessment Rating Tool which 
     is designed to improve agency performance);

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:

[[Page 5285]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the 2001 Interior Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-
     291), which established a separate discretionary spending 
     category for land conservation and natural resource 
     protection programs for the fiscal years 2001 through 2006, 
     passed by large margins in both the House and the Senate; and
       (2) in establishing a separate conservation spending 
     category, Congress recognized the chronic underfunding of 
     programs that protect and enhance public lands, wildlife 
     habitats, urban parks, historic and cultural landmarks, and 
     coastal ecosystems.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     the any law establishing new caps on discretionary spending 
     should include a separate conservation spending category and 
     that any caps on conservation spending for fiscal years 2005 
     or 2006 should be set at the levels established in Public Law 
     106-291.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 411. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON LIHEAP.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the United States is in the grip of pervasively higher 
     home energy prices;
       (2) high natural gas, heating oil, and propane prices are, 
     in general, having an effect that is rippling through the 
     United States economy and are, in particular, impacting home 
     energy bills;
       (3) while persons in many sectors can adapt to natural gas, 
     heating oil, and propane price increases, persons in some 
     sectors simply cannot;
       (4) elderly and disabled citizens who are living on fixed 
     incomes, the working poor, and other low-income individuals 
     face hardships wrought by high home energy prices;
       (5) the energy burden for persons among the working poor 
     often exceeds percent of

[[Page 5286]]

     those persons' incomes under normal conditions;
       (6) under current circumstances, home energy prices are 
     unnaturally high, and these are not normal circumstances;
       (7) while critically important and encouraged, State energy 
     assistance and charitable assistance funds have been 
     overwhelmed by the crisis caused by the high home energy 
     prices;
       (8) the Federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
     (referred to in this section as ``LIHEAP'') and the companion 
     weatherization assistance program (referred to in this 
     section as ``WAP''), are the Federal Government's primary 
     means to assist eligible low-income individuals in the United 
     States to shoulder the burdens caused by their home cooling 
     and heating needs;
       (9) in 2003, LIHEAP reached only 15 percent of the persons 
     in the United States who were eligible for assistance under 
     the program;
       (10) since LIHEAP's inception, its inflation-adjusted 
     buying power has eroded by 58 percent; and
       (11) current Federal funding for LIHEAP is not sufficient 
     to meet the cooling and heating needs of low-income families.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     the levels in this concurrent resolution assume--
       (1) an authorization of $3,400,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2005 and 2006 to carry out the LIHEAP program;
       (2) an authorization of $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 
     and $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 to carry out the WAP 
     program;
       (3) appropriations, for these programs, of sufficient 
     additional funds to realistically address the cooling and 
     heating needs of low-income families;
       (4) advance appropriations of the necessary funds to ensure 
     the smooth operation of the programs during times of peak 
     demand.

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

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a member of the committee.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, there are opportunities sometimes 
provided for bipartisanship in this House and one looks for them 
because frankly they do not happen all that often it seems like. And so 
I looked at the Blue Dog budget with the hope that in fact there would 
be that opportunity to do something in a bipartisan way here that I 
could support it, and quite frankly there were things that I liked when 
I looked into it. I liked the fact that it assumes permanent estate tax 
relief for families with farms and small businesses, a good idea. I 
liked the PAYGO provision, a good idea. Establishing a point of order 
against legislation with costs that begin outside the

[[Page 5287]]

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

[[Page 5288]]

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

                              {time}  1330

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

[[Page 5289]]

cut defense. We maintain the President's numbers on defense. And in 
fact, if there is any criticism due here, it should be on the 
chairman's budget when they cut homeland security $800 billion below 
what the President recommended. We happen to think that it is important 
to pursue the war on terror both at home and abroad, and in our budget 
we stay with the recommendations of the President on that issue.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I have got the figures right here, and there is a cut in defense of 
$2 billion in this year. I would suggest you need to read your own 
budget because there is a cut in defense, and I say that as 
respectfully as I can. I believe we can find savings in defense, but 
please do not come here advertising there are no cuts in defense when 
you put in this first year alone cuts in defense.
  So those are the facts, and I believe that again you have got to look 
at your advertisements meeting the reality of the budget itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  I yield to the chairman for a simple request. Does the Blue Dog 
budget reduce the deficit more than the chairman's budget? Yes or no?
  I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I do not need the time. I have got my own 
time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Okay, Mr. Chairman. He does not want to respond. I was 
just asking him because I really dislike the kind of rejoinders that we 
are getting into now because it is ``he said, you said, I said,'' and 
it means nothing.
  But since we are into this now, let me talk about the chairman's 
budget as it affects agriculture, both in mandatory and discretionary 
spending. And this is not about agriculture not being willing to take 
our share of the cuts, as the gentleman from Connecticut said 
yesterday. Agriculture has always been fiscally responsible and will 
continue to be. However, the Chairman's budget will result in a 
disproportionate amount of cuts from agriculture.
  Keep in mind that in order to keep agriculture at last year's 
spending level, the appropriators will have to cut $650 million out of 
the farm bill as they did in the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. If we 
assume that in the chairman's budget the discretionary cuts will be 
proportionately divided among the appropriation bills, then this number 
will rise another $1.6 billion. That is correct. That is the chairman's 
budget.
  And I want to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
read their own budget, what they are being asked to support today and 
how it is going to affect rural districts in conservation, water 
issues, rural development, environmental issues, research, because this 
is real.
  And I commend the chairman because he honestly and sincerely is 
trying to do what his party has asked him to do. And it is real. His 
budget is real in what he proposes to do, including increasing the 
deficit $260 billion over the next 5 years. That is real. But he does 
it openly and honestly as he is defining it.
  What I resent is his defining our budget as not being honest. His is 
honest. His will reopen the farm bill. Reopening the farm bill, which 
is what we will do under the reconciliation instructions that, if his 
budget passes, it will occur. And there are some on that side of the 
aisle and some on this side of the aisle that might want to do that. 
But I do not think a majority of this body want to go down that path.
  So we want to talk about numbers, and we want to go through the 
little game we have been playing. Let us go through that little game.
  This is not a game. In the agriculture function, this is real. The 
chairman is honest in bringing it to the floor and saying, this is what 
we will do if we pass their budget. Think about that before voting for 
this budget on final passage. Vote for the Blue Dog budget. It avoids 
that kind of a problem.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  First and foremost, let me say to the gentleman who is the ranking 
member of the Committee on Agriculture, the choice will be the 
Committee on Agriculture's choice on where to find those savings, and I 
doubt seriously that the gentleman from Texas is going to be promoting 
opening up the farm bill. At least I would hope that he does not. That 
is not what the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee 
on Agriculture, is suggesting.
  I would hope that the gentleman from Texas does not believe that we 
should open up the farm bill. There is certainly no one on this side of 
the aisle, or I should not say no one, but there is certainly no one 
who I am aware of who wants to open up the farm bill at this time. That 
is not where the savings would come from. So I hope the gentleman would 
allow his own committee to work its will and to work within that 
committee process.
  He asks us to respect the committee process on the one hand, and yet 
he predisposes that on the other. And I have to tell the Members I do 
not believe the farm bill is where we ought to be looking.
  Second of all, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot 
say on the one hand, we are going to raise taxes on the job creators, 
the small businesses, the farmers, the ranchers, we are going to raise 
taxes on those people, and accept the economic assumptions that the 
economy is going to continue to grow.
  You are saying on the one hand, we are going to kill jobs, we are 
going to tax small business, we are going to tax farmers; and on the 
other hand, do not worry about the economy, it is going to continue to 
grow at the same baseline amount. So you accept our numbers on the 
economy, which are derived, in part, from the fact that the tax cuts 
are working and the economy, the last 6 months at least, has had the 
strongest growth in 20 years.
  You are accepting all the good news. You are accepting all the cake. 
But you cannot at the same time say, oh, no, but we are going to raise 
taxes on those same people who are creating the jobs, who are providing 
all that economic development, who are helping to make sure that the 
economy is growing, who are spending their money, who are being 
productive; we are going to tax them, and we are going to accept the 
economic growth. You cannot have it on the one side and then take it 
back on the other.
  So you need to change your economic factors if you are going to come 
to the floor with a budget that you are going to at least purport. That 
answers the question.
  The very distinguished gentleman from Texas asked me a question. He 
said, Are our deficit numbers better or worse? The issue is, we do not 
know because you accept the good news of the economy that the tax cuts 
have given us, and yet on the other hand you take away the tax cuts.
  So on the one hand you say, oh, yes, our deficits are going to get 
smaller because the economy is going to improve, because that is the 
same baseline that you have; and yet on the other hand, you take away 
the goose that is laying the golden egg, by taxing, by digging deeper 
into the pockets of the very people who are creating those jobs.
  You cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The Blue Dog budget assumes that we need a change. The gentleman's 
budget and economic game plan that he has been so proud of since 2001 
has given us the largest deficits in the history of this country. We 
have borrowed $1 trillion in the last 2\1/2\ years. We are going to 
borrow another $1 trillion in the next 1\1/2\ years, and yet he comes 
and says his numbers are better than our numbers.
  We simply propose a change, and it ought to be a bipartisan change 
and it ought to be one that adopts pay-as-you-go so that we get back on 
a fiscally responsible direction for this country. We thought we had a 
bipartisan support for that. It passed the Senate in a bipartisan way. 
What happened in this body?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Berry).

[[Page 5290]]


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

                              {time}  1345

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

[[Page 5291]]

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 89]

                               AYES--183

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa

[[Page 5292]]


     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--243

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Abercrombie
     Hoeffel
     Lucas (KY)
     McInnis
     Pence
     Quinn
     Tauzin


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1422

  Messrs. ROTHMAN, MURTHA, PUTNAM, MILLER of Florida, PAYNE, RUSH, 
CROWLEY and Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia and Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of 
Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TIERNEY, GEORGE MILLER of California and SNYDER changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 3 printed in House Report 108-446.


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

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

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

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

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through 2009 are hereby set forth.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent Resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

            TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

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

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

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

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

                   Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

Sec. 311. Contingency procedure for surface transportation.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

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

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2009:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,272,787,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,456,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,610,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,720,721,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,809,790,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,907,703,000,000.

[[Page 5293]]

       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $0.
       Fiscal year 2005: $23,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $44,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $34,223,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $36,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $45,357,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,952,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,995,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,052,943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,171,940,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,285,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,399,316,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,911,235,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,993,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,066,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,151,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,254,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,365,995,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $638,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $539,494,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $456,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $430,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $444,889,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $458,292,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $7,436,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $8,086,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,867,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,227,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,809,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,406,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $4,385,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,765,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,055,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,300,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,547,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,795,000,000,000.

      SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

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

[[Page 5294]]

       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (8) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (9) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (10) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (11) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (12) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (13) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (14) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (15) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.

[[Page 5295]]

       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (17) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (18) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (19) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $240,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,507,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $318,306,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $318,306,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $363,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $396,474,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $396,474,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $424,724,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $424,724,000,000.
       (20) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,268,359,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,242,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,323,733,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,298,485,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,313,116,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,330,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,372,233,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,370,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,431,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,421,831,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,486,659,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,475,577,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$47,233,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,349,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,475,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$62,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$63,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$65,485,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,856,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,893,000,000.

            TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste, 
     Fraud, and Abuse in Mandatory Programs.--
       (1) Not later than July 15, 2004, the House committees 
     named in paragraph (2) shall submit their recommendations to 
     the House Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall 
     report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $220,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $3,100,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (B) Committee on armed services.--The House Committee on 
     Armed Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $50,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $250,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (C) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     level of direct spending for that committee by $90,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 2005 and $750,000,000 in outlays for 
     the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (D) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $1,530,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $12,750,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (E) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee 
     on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $50,000,000 in new budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2005 and $190,000,000 in new budget 
     authority for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (F) Committee on government reform.--The House Committee on 
     Government Reform shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $200,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $2,000,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (G) Committee on house administration.--The House Committee 
     on House Administration shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $500,000 in outlays for fiscal 
     year 2005 and $3,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009.
       (H) Committee on international relations.--The House 
     Committee on International Relations shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level 
     of direct spending for that committee by $150,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 2005 and $1,125,000,000 in outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (I) Committee on the judiciary.--The House Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $80,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $550,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (J) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on 
     Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $50,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $350,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (K) Committee on science.--The House Committee on Science 
     shall report changes

[[Page 5296]]

     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     level of direct spending for that committee by $1,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 2005 and $6,000,000 in outlays for 
     the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (L) Committee on small business.--The House Committee on 
     Small Business shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $0 in outlays for fiscal year 
     2005 and $0 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009.
       (M) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $100,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2005 and 
     $1,150,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009.
       (N) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $10,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $125,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (O) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $4,784,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2005 and $38,947,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (P) Special rule.--The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may take into account legislation enacted after the 
     adoption of this resolution that is determined to reduce the 
     deficit and may make applicable adjustments in reconciliation 
     instructions, allocations, and budget aggregates and may also 
     make adjustments in reconciliation instructions to protect 
     earned benefit programs.
       (b) Submission Providing for the Extension of Expiring Tax 
     Relief.--(1) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall 
     report a reconciliation bill not later than October 1, 2004, 
     that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce revenues by not more than 
     $13,182,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and by not more than 
     $137,580,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009.
       (2) If a reconciliation bill, as reported pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), does not increase the deficit for fiscal year 
     2005 or for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 
     above the levels permitted in such paragraph, the chairman of 
     the House Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     reconciliation instructions under this section to permit the 
     Committee on Ways and Means to increase the level of direct 
     spending outlays, make conforming adjustments to the revenue 
     instruction to decrease the reduction in revenues, and make 
     conforming changes in allocations to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means and in budget aggregates.
       (c) Submission Providing for Additional Tax Relief.--(1) 
     The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report a 
     reconciliation bill not later than October 1, 2004, that 
     consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce revenues by not more than $9,818,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2005 and by not more than $45,000,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
       (2) If a reconciliation bill, as reported pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), does not increase the deficit for fiscal year 
     2005 or for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 
     above the levels permitted in such paragraph, the chairman of 
     the House Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     reconciliation instructions under this section to permit the 
     Committee on Ways and Means to increase the level of direct 
     spending outlays, make conforming adjustments to the revenue 
     instruction to decrease the reduction in revenues, and make 
     conforming changes in allocations to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means and in budget aggregates.

     SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON DEFENSE SAVINGS.

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

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR PENDING LEGISLATION.

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

                   Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

     SEC. 311. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--If the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House reports legislation, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides new budget authority for the 
     budget accounts or portions thereof in the highway and 
     transit categories as defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and 
     (C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985 in excess of the following amounts:
       (1) For fiscal year 2004: $41,569,000,000;
       (2) For fiscal year 2005: $42,657,000,000;
       (3) For fiscal year 2006: $43,635,000,000;
       (4) For fiscal year 2007: $45,709,000,000;
       (5) For fiscal year 2008: $46,945,000,000; or
       (6) For fiscal year 2009: $47,732,000,000;

     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2004, 
     for fiscal year 2005, and for the period of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to the extent such excess is offset by a 
     reduction in mandatory outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or 
     an increase in receipts appropriated to such fund for the 
     applicable fiscal year caused by such legislation or any 
     previously enacted legislation.
       (b) Adjustment for Outlays.--For fiscal year 2004 or 2005, 
     in the House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or 
     if an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report 
     thereon is submitted, that changes obligation limitations 
     such that the total limitations are in excess of 
     $40,116,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 or $41,204,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2005 for programs, projects, and activities 
     within the highway and transit categories as defined in 
     sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and if legislation has 
     been enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in 
     subsection (a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation of 
     outlays and appropriate aggregates for such fiscal year for 
     the committee reporting such measure by the amount of outlays 
     that corresponds to such excess obligation limitations, but 
     not to exceed the amount of such excess that was offset 
     pursuant to subsection (a).

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. DEFENSE FIREWALL.

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

[[Page 5297]]



     SEC. 402. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported 
     in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation 
     or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an 
     amendment thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
       (b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may 
     be provided for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal years 2006 and 
     2007 for programs, projects, activities or accounts 
     identified in the joint explanatory statement of managers 
     accompanying this resolution under the heading ``Accounts 
     Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate 
     amount not to exceed $23,568,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2005 that first 
     becomes available for any fiscal year after 2005.

     SEC. 403. EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       (a) Exemption of Overseas Contingency Operations.-- In the 
     House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or an 
     amendment is offered thereto or a conference report is filed 
     thereon, that makes supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2005 for contingency operations related to the global 
     war on terrorism, then the new budget authority, new 
     entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting 
     therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 
     and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for the 
     provisions of such measure that are designated pursuant to 
     this subsection as making appropriations for such contingency 
     operations.
       (b) Exemption of Emergency Provisions.--In the House, if a 
     bill or joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is 
     offered thereto or a conference report is filed thereon, that 
     designates a provision as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to this section, then the new budget authority, new 
     entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting 
     therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 
     311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (c) Designations.--
       (1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation 
     is designated as an emergency requirement under subsection 
     (b), the committee report and any statement of managers 
     accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of 
     the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in 
     paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the 
     House without being reported, then the committee shall cause 
     the explanation to be published in the Congressional Record 
     in advance of floor consideration.
       (2) Criteria.--
       (A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency 
     requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to 
     life, property, or national security and is--
       (i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up 
     over time;
       (ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       (iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       (iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       (B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate 
     level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally 
     estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
       (d) Enforcement.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment or conference report that contains an emergency 
     designation unless that designation meets the criteria set 
     out in subsection (c)(2).
       (e) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall 
     not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a 
     rule or order that waives the application of subsection (d).
       (f) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As 
     disposition of a point of order under subsection (d) or 
     subsection (e), the Chair shall put the question of 
     consideration with respect to the proposition that is the 
     subject of the point of order. A question of consideration 
     under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the 
     Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent of the point of order, but shall otherwise be 
     decided without intervening motion except one that the House 
     adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole rise, as the case 
     may be.

     SEC. 404. ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET AGGREGATES.

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

     would cause for any fiscal year covered by this resolution 
     the appropriate allocation made pursuant to section 302(a)(1) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to be exceeded.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) of this section shall not 
     apply to any bill, joint resolution or conference report that 
     only provides continuing appropriations.
       (c) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall 
     not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a 
     rule or order that waives the application of subsection (a).
       (d) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As 
     disposition of a point of order under subsection (a) or 
     subsection (c), the Chair shall put the question of 
     consideration with respect to the proposition that is the 
     subject of the point of order. A question of consideration 
     under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the 
     Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent of the point of order, but shall otherwise be 
     decided without intervening motion except one that the House 
     adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole rise, as the case 
     may be.
       (e) Effect on Amendment in Order as Original Text in the 
     House.--The disposition of the question of consideration 
     under this section with respect to a bill or joint resolution 
     shall be considered also to determine the question of 
     consideration under this subsection with respect to an 
     amendment made in order as original text.

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

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

     SEC. 406. ACTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(B)(1) OF THE 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

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

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

       (a) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a ledger to be known as the ``Discretionary Spending 
     Ledger''. The Ledger shall be divided into entries 
     corresponding to the subcommittees of the Committee on 
     Appropriations and each entry shall consist of the ``Deficit 
     Reduction Safeguard Balance''.
       (b) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under paragraph (c). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (c) Whenever a Member offers an amendment to an 
     appropriation bill to reduce new budget authority in any 
     account, that Member may state the portion of such reduction 
     that shall be--
       (1) credited to the Deficit Reduction Safeguard Balance;
       (2) used to offset an increase in new budget authority in 
     any other account; or
       (3) allowed to remain within the applicable section 302(b) 
     suballocation.
       If no such statement is made, the amount of reduction in 
     new budget authority resulting from the amendment shall be 
     credited to the Deficit Reduction Safeguard Balance, as 
     applicable, if the amendment is agreed to.
       (d) Except as provided by paragraph (e), the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget shall, upon the engrossment of 
     any appropriation bill by the House of Representatives, 
     credit to the entry balance amounts of

[[Page 5298]]

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

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

       (a) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a ledger to be known as the ``Mandatory Spending 
     Ledger''. The Ledger shall be divided into entries 
     corresponding to the House committees that received 
     allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 as a result of this concurrent resolution, except 
     that it shall not include the Committee on Appropriations and 
     each entry shall consist of the ``First Year Deficit 
     Reduction Safeguard Balance'' and the ``Five Year Deficit 
     Reduction Safeguard Balance''.
       (b) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under paragraph (c). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (c) Whenever a Member offers an amendment to a bill that 
     reduces the amount of mandatory budget authority provided 
     either under current law or proposed to be provided by the 
     bill under consideration, that Member may state the portion 
     of such reduction achieved in the first year covered by this 
     concurrent resolution and in addition the portion of such 
     reduction achieved in the first five years covered by this 
     concurrent resolution that shall be--
       (1) credited to the First Year Deficit Reduction Safeguard 
     Balance and the Five Year Deficit Reduction Safeguard 
     Balance;
       (2) used to offset an increase in other new budget 
     authority; or
       (3) allowed to remain within the applicable section 302(a) 
     allocation.
       If no such statement is made, the amount of reduction in 
     new budget authority resulting from the amendment shall be 
     credited to the First Year Deficit Reduction Safeguard 
     Balance and the Five Year Deficit Reduction Safeguard 
     Balance, as applicable, if the amendment is agreed to.
       (d) Except as provided by subparagraph (e), the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget shall, upon the engrossment of 
     any bill, other than an appropriation bill, by the House, 
     credit to the applicable entry balances amounts of new budget 
     authority and outlays equal to the net amounts of reductions 
     in budget authority and in outlays resulting from amendments 
     agreed to by the House to that bill.
       (e) When computing the net amounts of reductions in budget 
     authority and in outlays resulting from amendments agreed to 
     by the House to a bill, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget shall only count those portions of such amendments 
     agreed to that were so designated by the Members offering 
     such amendments as amounts to be credited to the First Year 
     Deficit Reduction Safeguard Balance and the Five Year Deficit 
     Reduction Safeguard Balance, or that fall within the last 
     sentence of subparagraph (c).
       (f) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a running tally of the amendments adopted reflecting 
     increases and decreases of budget authority in the bill as 
     reported. This tally shall be available to Members during 
     consideration of any bill by the House.
       (g) For the purposes of enforcing section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, upon the engrossment of any 
     bill, other than an appropriation bill, by the House, the 
     amount of budget authority and outlays calculated pursuant to 
     subparagraph (e) shall be counted against the 302(a) 
     allocation provided to the applicable committee or committees 
     which reported the bill as if the amount calculated pursuant 
     to subparagraph (e) was included in the bill just engrossed.
       (h) As used in this section, the term ``appropriation 
     bill'' means any general or special appropriation bill, and 
     any bill or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency, 
     or continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year 
     2004 or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.

     SEC. 409. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING 
                   FROM REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING 
                   REVENUES.

       (a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion or conference report, including measures 
     filed in compliance with section 201(b) or 201(c) of this 
     concurrent resolution, that propose to change Federal 
     revenues, the impact of such measure on Federal revenues 
     shall be calculated by the Joint Committee on Taxation in a 
     manner that takes into account:
       (1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on--
       (A) Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for 
     the Gross Domestic Product;
       (B) Total Domestic Employment;
       (C) Gross Private Domestic Investment;
       (D) General Price Index;
       (E) Interest Rates; and
       (F) Other economic variables
       (2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in 
     economic variables analyzed under subpart (1) of this 
     paragraph.
       (b) The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make 
     any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order 
     to conform this concurrent resolution with the determinations 
     made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to paragraph 
     (a) of this section.

     SEC. 410. PROHIBITION ON USING REVENUE INCREASES TO COMPLY 
                   WITH BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.

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

      SEC. 411. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

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

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

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

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) authorizing committees should actively engage in 
     oversight utilizing--
       (A) the plans and goals submitted by executive agencies 
     pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 
     1993; and
       (B) the performance evaluations submitted by such agencies 
     (that are based upon the Program Assessment Rating Tool which 
     is designed to improve agency performance);

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

[[Page 5299]]

       (5) Congress should make every effort to offset nonwar-
     related supplemental appropriations.

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) The House of Representatives finds that--
       (1) the concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 
     2005 should achieve the following key goals:
       (A) Ensure adequate funding is available for essential 
     government programs, in particular defense and homeland 
     security.
       (B) Foster greater economic growth and increased domestic 
     employment by eliminating those provisions in the tax code 
     that discourage economic growth and job creation and by 
     extending existing tax relief provisions so as to prevent an 
     automatic tax increase.
       (C) Bring the Federal budget back into balance as soon as 
     possible.
       (2) the Federal Government spends billions of dollars each 
     year on programs and projects that are of marginal value to 
     the country as a whole;
       (3) funding for these lower priority programs should be 
     viewed in light of the goals of this concurrent resolution 
     and whether or not continued funding of these programs 
     advances or hinders the achievement of these goals; and
       (4) this concurrent resolution assumes that funding for 
     many lower priority programs will be reduced or eliminated in 
     order increase funding for defense and homeland security 
     while at the same time controlling overall spending.
       (b) It is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
     the following programs should be eliminated:
       (1) Title X Family Planning.
       (2) Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
       (3) National Endowment for the Arts.
       (4) Legal Services Corporation.
       (5) The Advanced Technology Program.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 574, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) on his great work to produce a truly fiscally responsible 
budget. It takes a big step in the right direction. But the Republican 
Study Committee budget takes even more steps in the right direction.
  Budgets are so much more than green eyeshade exercises for 
accountants. They are so much more than esoteric econometric modeling. 
Beyond the numbers, they are really about values and priorities. The 
values and priorities of the budget I offer today are simple, less 
government and more freedom. Of all the budgets introduced in Congress 
today, none, and I repeat none, contain less government or more freedom 
than the Republican Study Committee alternative which I have the honor 
to introduce today.
  Permit me to summarize what this budget does. First, for only the 
second time in a decade, we would actually reduce the size of 
government. In the aggregate, we reduce nondefense discretionary 
spending by 1 percent and reduce the rate of growth in mandatory 
spending by 1 percent. Why is this important? Because it is a fact. It 
is an eternal truth that as governments expand, liberty contracts. That 
means fewer opportunities for Americans to choose the best health care 
for their families, to choose the best educational opportunities for 
their children, or to find the best job in a competitive market 
economy.
  Secondly, this budget fully funds the Commander in Chief's defense 
and homeland defense request. This is a Nation at war. For many years 
this Nation ran a defense deficit with deteriorating infrastructure, 
outdated equipment, and lagging military pay. We must continue to close 
this defense deficit because there can be only one outcome to this war, 
victory for freedom and defeat for terrorism.
  Next, Mr. Chairman, this budget cuts the deficit in half in 3 years. 
As the father of a 2-year-old daughter and a 6-month-old son, I take a 
back seat to no one regarding my concern about the deficit. But we must 
all realize that the deficit is a symptom. Spending is the disease. And 
by any measure, spending is out of control. For only the fourth time in 
the history of our Nation, the Federal Government is now spending over 
$20,000 per household. This figure is up from just 5 years ago of 
$16,000 per household, representing the largest expansion of government 
in 50 years. Last year, what we call mandatory spending reached 11 
percent of our economy for the first time ever. Nondefense 
discretionary spending is now almost 4 percent of the economy for the 
first time in 20 years, and almost every major Department of the 
government has grown precipitously way beyond the rate of inflation.
  Besides being out of control, much of this Federal spending, 
unfortunately, is just pure waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Until recently, Medicare had routinely paid as much as five times for 
a wheelchair as the VA had, simply because one bid competitively and 
the other did not. In the last year of the Clinton administration, HUD 
wasted over 10 percent of their budget making improper payments, $3 
billion lost. We spent almost $800,000 for a toilet in one national 
park and the toilet did not even flush. And we are just scratching the 
surface here.

[[Page 5300]]

  Example after example shows that many Federal programs routinely 
waste 5, 10, 15, 20 percent of their taxpayer-funded budgets and have 
for decades.
  Mr. Chairman, this has got to stop. Government is inherently 
wasteful. It does almost nothing as well as we the people, and it must 
be limited. And until we do limit it, we will never prioritize, much 
less root out the waste, the fraud, the abuse that permeates every 
corner of our Federal budget.
  Again, this Republican Study Committee alternative is the only budget 
that actually reduces government and thus begins the vital process of 
protecting the family budget from the Federal budget.
  Next, Mr. Chairman, the RSC budget promotes economic growth by 
providing tax relief, $183 billion over 5 years. This will ensure that 
we do not imperil our economic recovery by raising taxes as all the 
Democrat alternatives propose to do. This figure accommodates the 
President's request and will help ensure that tax relief such as the 
child tax credit and the marriage penalty tax relief will not be 
canceled.
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have said that tax 
relief represents a huge government expenditure that creates huge 
deficits. They are wrong. First, it is not the government's money; it 
is the people's money. Secondly, when it comes to the deficit, the tax 
relief is miniscule compared to the spending, roughly $180 billion over 
5 years compared to over $13 trillion of spending over the same time 
period. In other words, if you do the math, tax relief is only 1 
percent of total spending. One percent.
  If the Democrats truly care about budget deficits, they should focus 
their attention on the spending side of deficit, which represents 99 
percent of the problem.
  Finally, tax relief has proven to be part of the deficit solution, 
not part of the deficit problem. Tax relief has helped ignite our 
historic economic recovery, created jobs, and brought our unemployment 
rate down. And most importantly with respect to the deficit, Treasury 
reports show that after cutting tax rates, we increase tax revenues. 
That is right. Tax revenues are up.
  The final thing that the Republican Study Committee budget does is to 
ensure we live up to our commitments to the American people. In other 
words, when we pass a budget, we enforce that budget. Too often through 
advance appropriations, so-called emergency spending and other devices, 
Congress has ignored its own budget. This too must stop. Through 
closing loopholes and creating Family Budget Protection Accounts, the 
Republican Study Committee budget takes a giant step towards ensuring 
that Congress indeed means what it says when it passes the budget.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, budgets are truly about priorities and 
values as much as they are about numbers. Our budget prioritizes the 
family budget over the Federal budget. It values less government and 
more freedom. For the sake of our own children and the future of the 
Nation, the Republican Study Committee substitute should be adopted by 
the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, and claim the time in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of the time I have 
claimed in opposition be yielded to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) for purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  There have been a lot of numbers used in this debate, thrown around 
with great abandon. I must give my Republican colleagues credit. They 
have used numbers and rhetoric very cleverly over these last 2 days, 
but I would urge my fellow Americans watching this debate to pay very, 
very close attention to the way the numbers are actually being used and 
also to what is not being said.
  For example, Democrats talked for 20 minutes yesterday about how the 
Republican budget seriously underfunds our first responders. The 
Republicans responded by saying our numbers were all wrong because 
their budget increased funding for homeland security. Then they listed 
numbers showing increases in transportation and border protection as 
examples. Yet they were strangely silent about funding for police 
departments, for firefighters, for other first responders, which was 
actually what we were discussing; and they were silent for the 
understandable reason that their budget gives these first responders 
far less support than they had before 9/11!
  We have criticized the Republican budget for creating a spiraling 
deficit as their spending plans and their tax cuts kick in over the 
next 10 years. They say we are confused because the Republican plan is 
going to cut the deficit in half over the next 4 or 5 years. That, in 
itself, is debatable, but I promise my colleagues that they will hear 
no Republican talk about the effect of their budget on the deficit over 
the next 10 years, as their tax cuts for the wealthy and their extra 
spending kick in, because the result is deficits in the $500 billion 
range, as far as the eye can see.
  We have talked about how the Democratic substitute does not merely 
reduce the deficit, but actually eliminates the deficit within 10 
years, while redirecting more resources toward areas Americans care 
about, like education, veterans' benefits, first responders, housing 
and safety net programs.
  Our Republican friends say, Aha, you do this by raising taxes on 
Americans. Well, we do understand that there is no free lunch, and we 
want to reinstate the real pay-as-you-go rule that served us so well 
through the 1990s. But rather than raise taxes, we are talking about 
merely freezing scheduled reductions for those making over $500,000 a 
year and also closing some egregious corporate loopholes.
  It is true that the tax cuts for millionaires in our plan are less 
than the tax cuts for millionaires in theirs. But I doubt we will hear 
our Republican friends putting it quite that way.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to pay very, very close 
attention to what numbers are being used by each side and to what is 
not being said. Budgets are, after all, about priorities, and the 
Democratic priorities are clear. Fund the programs America needs, 
balance the budget, and target tax cuts in ways that stimulate the 
economy and do not merely enrich the most fortunate among us.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lend my strong support to 
the Republican Study Committee budget. As chairman of the RSC, I am 
very proud of this budget and I want the thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling) for all of his hard work on making this possible.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for 
his hard work and dedication to reining in spending. The gentleman from 
Iowa and the leadership of the House spent a lot of time honestly 
listening to Members' concerns. The underlying budget is an important 
first step for our conference, and I am very proud to support it.
  However, I had hoped that we could do more. Hardworking Americans 
have to watch their spending, and so should Congress. Congress has got 
to get in the mind-set of spending less.
  I will continue to remind my colleagues that Americans expect us to 
be responsible with their tax dollars. It takes them a long time to 
earn those dollars to send up here for us to spend.

[[Page 5301]]

  This RSC budget reduces nondefense, nonhomeland security 
discretionary spending by 1 percent compared to last year's level. It 
assumes the President's numbers for tax relief over the next 5 years. 
The Committee on the Budget calls for $152.6 billion in tax relief. We 
call for $182.6 billion.
  Most importantly, it establishes a fire wall, preventing the 
consideration of appropriations bills until at least $402 billion is 
provided for defense and military construction. The RSC budget brings 
true accountability to the Federal budget.
  It is time Congress gets serious about reining in wasteful spending 
and getting our budget under control. This is what we were sent here to 
do. That is what the American people expect us to do. They want us to 
stop business as usual and stop the excuses.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
allocate portions of his time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is allowed to yield time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, there is a moral dimension to these huge 
tax cuts the Republicans give to the upper two percentiles. In this 
budget, they cut research that would cover Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, 
heart disease, diabetes, by $553 million, the research dollars that 
will help every American family to avoid the tragedy of these diseases 
which would ravage their families.
  Tax cuts should not come before an increase in the budget for the 
NIH, but worse than that, they also cut $23.6 billion out of Medicaid, 
which is the budget which is used for Grandma and Grandpa in nursing 
homes across our country with Alzheimer's, with Parkinson's, with heart 
disease and every other illness that afflicts our country.
  They cannot have it both ways. They cannot not fund increases in NIH 
research to cure diseases and not have the funding then when they do 
not cure it in order to take care of Grandma and Grandpa in nursing 
homes.
  Watch out, Grandma. Watch out, Grandpa. GOP used to stand for Grand 
Old Party. Now it stands for Get Old People, for Got Our Pensions, and 
that is exactly what is happening in this Republican budget.
  The tax cuts for the wealthiest are sacrosanct, and as a result, 
programs that will help every American family deal with the ravages of 
disease has to be cut, whether it be in research or in nursing homes. 
GOP, get-old-people.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to observe, get old 
people? That is kind of interesting.
  The one program that seniors in our country depend on is Medicare. 
Are there any cuts in the Republican budget for Medicare? No. In fact, 
we funded a new drug benefit last year, and that is included in our 
budget. But, boy, it is interesting here, as I look at the Democrat 
substitute, look on the Medicare line, a cut in Medicare, is it 
possible that you could come to the floor with a cute little sign that 
says Get Old People and then cut Medicare and yell about it?
  I can yell, too, I suppose, but yelling does not make it different. 
My colleagues get old people with a Medicare cut. Why is it that they 
would come to the floor with a sign that says one thing and present a 
budget that does something completely different? At a time when we are 
trying to modernize Medicare, provide providers with better 
reimbursements and help provide the first-ever prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare is not the time to cut Medicare. My colleagues 
should not have that in their budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) knows that the Medicare bill 
that he is bragging about, in fact, is simply a payoff to the drug 
companies and to the insurance industries, $46 billion direct taxpayer 
subsidies to the insurance industry, $200 billion in direct subsidies 
to the drug companies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in absolute astonishment at the 
disingenuous budget resolution presented by the Republican majority and 
in opposition to the Republican Study Committee's alternative. But at 
least the Republican Study Committee, I give them credit, they try to 
be consistent. They try to bring down the deficit. They try to say that 
we cannot have these tremendous deficits.
  I do not know whether to laugh or cry, to actually carve out 
protections that allow increases in the deficit by billions. What has 
happened to the soul of the Republican Party? Is fiscal responsibility 
no longer their mantra? Make no mistake, guaranteeing that we can have 
tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts means even bigger 
increases in the deficit.
  The tax cuts for the rich are robbing us of our ability to fund 
needed programs. How can we look at our children and grandchildren and 
say we are promoting the general welfare? $7 trillion in debt, every 
American now carries a burden of $24,326. Just this year alone we are 
spending $340 billion on interest for this debt. We are leaving our 
children and grandchildren an economic time bomb.
  Just as the baby boom generation begins to retire, this budget spends 
every penny of the Medicare and Social Security surpluses over the next 
10 years, but not on Medicare and Social Security; and the cuts on 
Medicaid are shameful in this budget when we consider that unemployment 
is high and people need Medicaid.
  Democrats want to balance the budget and pay our bills now, not 
sometime in the future. Republicans used to stand in this Chamber and 
scream about balanced budgets. What happened to you?
  Reject this budget and support the gentleman from South Carolina's 
(Mr. Spratt) alternative.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  If the gentleman is concerned about spending, this budget actually 
does cut spending. I would encourage him to sponsor it. Additionally, 
99 percent of our deficit problem is on the spending side. So I do not 
understand why 99 percent of the rhetoric is on the tax side, on the 
other side.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate my colleague, 
the gentleman from Texas, for introducing an outstanding budget and for 
his hard work in making a point, in producing a budget that really goes 
a long way towards achieving the fiscal discipline that we need here.
  It seems to me the goal of the Federal budget ought to be primarily 
to create an environment in which we allow the American people to 
maximize their prosperity, to maximize their opportunity, to maximize 
their chance to realize the American dream.
  If the American people could actually individually vote on this 
today, I think this is the budget that would win because the American 
people know that our taxes are too high to achieve the maximum level of 
prosperity that our country is capable of, and they know that here in 
Washington we spend too much money. We have for years, and it has been 
accelerating in recent years; and so this is the budget that addresses 
those two issues best.
  It cuts spending a little tiny bit. That is all, one small part of 
the total government spending. We actually propose in this Republican 
Study Committee budget a 1 percent cut, one penny out of every dollar 
in the nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending area. We 
think that there is at least that much waste and fraud and abuse and 
unnecessary and duplicative programs, and so we are saying, how about 
one penny out of every dollar in just this category?
  What else did this budget do? It says that the existing tax law ought 
to be permanent, that we should not, at a time when we are just kicking 
in a strong economic recovery, we should not raise taxes.

[[Page 5302]]

  This is a budget that shrinks the deficit, holds spending growth to a 
modest level and lowers taxes. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  My colleague across the aisle from Texas is feeling really proud of 
himself, because he thinks he found a Medicare cut in the Democratic 
alternative. Excuse me, we are talking about $800 million more for 
Medicare over the next 5 years. So he is just flat wrong, but there are 
a lot of things wrong in this budget.
  It is true that when we talk about, well, it is just 1 percent, it is 
just a little bit here or there, we are talking about a $2 billion cut 
in Medicaid. What is that about? Medicaid? We are talking about the 
poorest of Americans, many of whom, by the way, are working 7 days a 
week or 5 days a week trying to earn a living and still do not have 
benefits. Their children are doing without.
  Yes, it is true, we are talking about senior citizens in nursing 
homes. Medicaid pays for two out of three residents in nursing homes, 
one out of ten residents in assisted living facilities in addition to 
home-based and community-based care. We are talking about 52 million 
children, disabled persons, persons living with AIDS, parents, senior 
citizens who rely on Medicaid.
  Is this what fiscal discipline is really about? Is this what we want 
to cut in this budget?
  The Blue Dog budget, the Black Caucus budget and our Democratic 
alternative leave Medicaid intact because that is what government is 
supposed to do, help people when they need health care.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger).

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hensarling 
substitute budget. This budget sets priorities by fully funding the 
President's defense and homeland security requests while calling for a 
1 percent reduction in the rest of the discretionary budget.
  The budget addresses waste in non-Social Security mandatory spending 
by reducing it by just 1 cent out of each dollar. This budget protects 
the recent tax relief from increases for working families, parents and 
married couples and provides new tax relief that is necessary to 
strengthen the economic recovery.
  Finally, this budget begins fixing the broken Federal budget process 
by requiring a stand-alone vote to bypass any budget enforcement 
mechanism and therefore stopping the practice of labeling regular 
spending as emergencies.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hensarling amendment.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we just heard an interesting speech about Medicaid 
cuts. So, on the one hand, it is okay when you put a Medicare cut into 
your budget, and then come to the floor and say, do not worry about the 
Medicare cut in the Democratic substitute, do not worry about that, 
look over here at the Republican budget where they are cutting 
Medicaid.
  Let me tell Members what is happening to Medicaid.
  Let us assume for a moment that was coming out of Medicaid, $2 
billion was coming out of Medicaid. Sounds like a lot of money; it is a 
lot of money, particularly if you are a small business back home and 
people are trying to raise taxes.
  Let me show what happens to Medicaid with and without the reform. 
Instead of spending $1.15 trillion over the next 5 years, we are saying 
there are States out there that the Department of Health and Human 
Services has discovered are wasting or transferring approximately $9 
billion per year of what the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
said were suspicious transfers or suspicious spending. Not one penny of 
that, he is claiming, is going to nursing homes or seniors, not one 
penny. He is saying it is suspicious because the States are playing 
games with that money.
  So what we say is, we want to look for that money and find out 
whether or not the States are doing that. We want to see if we can 
provide some of that savings, and we want to put it back into the 
program so it actually goes to nursing homes and actually goes to 
people who are in poverty or people who do not have health care or kids 
in the SCHIP program.
  So what we are saying within our budget is, when we find savings, 
because maybe some States are abusing this program or maybe others are 
abusing that program, let us take that waste and put it back into the 
budget so we have a better health care system for our people who are 
indigent.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who specializes every year in 
this budget, cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, cutting SCHIP, cutting 
programs which protect health in this country, the gentleman from Iowa 
knows better.
  The fact is, our budget has $800 million in Medicare more than their 
budget. Their budget does a much better job of taking health care, 
Medicare dollars and shoveling them to insurance company HMOs. The 
President said it was only $14 billion insurance subsidies, taxpayer 
subsidies to insurance companies, under the Medicare bill until he 
signed the bill, then he acknowledged we are shoveling $46 billion in 
direct subsidies to insurance companies which also happen to be major 
political contributors to the President and to the Republican majority, 
not too different from drug company contributions to my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, the other major beneficiary of the Medicare 
bill.
  The Medicaid bill is not just a question of Republicans not reducing 
government spending, they are shifting the burden to the States. 
California loses $226 million in Medicaid funding; Florida loses $90 
million; Ohio, $87 million; Michigan, $60 million, and on and on and 
on.
  Medicaid covers 70 percent of the nursing homes in this country. If 
we pass the Democratic substitute, we are putting America's seniors 
ahead of HMOs. If we pass the Republican substitute, we are leaving 
seniors and disabled Americans on their own.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Medicaid spending is up 89 percent since 1995, and if the other side 
is concerned about the affordability of health care, perhaps they would 
join us in doing something about tort reform, medical liability reform 
and excess government regulation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) for presenting a budget that cuts spending and continues 
the tax relief passed by Congress last year, and also to thank the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for his work on our RSC budget, 
which is the most ambitious of our efforts.
  The RSC budget and the Budget Committee version differ in two areas: 
First, the deficit is cut in half within 3 years in the RSC budget, 1 
year earlier than the committee-reported budget. It is $63 billion 
lower over the next 5 years as compared to the committee-reported 
budget; and while the committee budget does include measures to enforce 
the budget provisions, the RSC substitute includes the budget process 
reforms that are a critical first step to long-term change in how we 
spend.
  The RSC budget includes elements of the Family Budget Protection Act 
to make it more difficult for future Congresses to bypass spending 
ceilings and allows appropriations savings to apply to tax relief or 
deficit reduction.
  I call on my colleagues to vote in favor of the RSC budget amendment 
to make a major step toward fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak today and rise 
in

[[Page 5303]]

support of the Republican Study Committee budget because it is a 
wonderful budget. I also commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
for doing an excellent job.
  There are two things that these budgets have in common that the other 
budgets that came to the floor do not have in common: Number one, these 
budgets get us to a balance quickly, and they do so without raising 
taxes by holding the line on spending.
  Specifically, the Study Committee budget cuts the budget in half in 3 
years, and it does so by making sure that not only do we never let tax 
increases occur over the next decade, but also by reducing spending. 
This is where our priorities need to lie.
  The other budgets which have been brought to the floor say they are 
going to balance the budget in a fairly quick time. How do they do it? 
They raise taxes. They are trying to make sure that the tax relief that 
was put out to the American people this year, that is helping encourage 
this economic recovery that is well under way, goes away.
  We cannot afford to pull the rug out from under this economic 
recovery. These tax relief measures that passed, that help get recovery 
under way, need to stay in law. The Study Committee budget cuts 
spending, gets the deficit cut in half in 3 years, and makes sure that 
every tax cut that the American worker, the American economy, receives 
stays in place.
  I encourage Members to vote for the Study Committee budget, and I 
thank the Committee on the Budget itself for doing an excellent job of 
producing a good, lean budget, both of which are leaner than the budget 
the President brought to Congress.
  This is a good day for us because finally we are getting a handle on 
the spending in Washington. Let us pass these budgets and move on to 
getting this job done.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I commend the Budget Committee and the 
gentleman from Iowa for their work. The Republican budget is, in fact, 
a very solid step in the right direction, and it deserves the support 
of our Members.
  I rise, however, in support of the RSC budget because I believe it is 
one step better than the Republican budget, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  I cannot engage in this debate without commenting on how really sad 
it is that to too many people across our country this looks like a 
complicated debate with a lot of fighting back and forth about 
technicalities. Yet in reality it is very simple, but here is how it 
gets complicated.
  A few moments ago the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said 
these Republicans are cutting, and he said GOP does not stand for Grand 
Old Party, it stands for Get Old People. But if Members listen 
carefully to his words, the first time he said ``cut,'' he wanted to 
induce the belief that the Republican budget, the budget put forward by 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), was in fact reducing the amount 
of spending for the research programs he discussed. But the gentleman 
is a smart Member, and he was very careful in his next comment.
  What the gentleman said, and I wrote it down as I listened carefully, 
he said ``by refusing to fund the increases,'' they are doing this, 
this and this.
  That is the essence of this debate. One side of the aisle says fund 
the increase, fund the increase, fund the increase. And their 
fundamental complaint is the rate of growth we have had in this budget, 
3.5 percent is not enough.
  But let us look at the history. The history is not a 3.5 percent 
growth, which it might be in the current budget. Let us talk about the 
real growth.
  For the last 3 years in America, notwithstanding the complaints from 
the other side of the aisle, we have not had a problem with Americans 
being undertaxed, we have had a problem with Congress overspending, and 
here are the hard, indisputable numbers. From 2001 to 2002, we 
increased spending by 10.7 percent, almost 11 percent in that 1 year. 
In the next year, from 2002 to 2003, we increased it by 15.6 percent; 
and last year, we said, wait a minute, we said, we had better slow 
down, and we increased it by just 3 percent. That is almost 30 percent 
in 3 years.
  What the RSC budget says, what the Republican budget says to a 
slightly less degree is having grown spending by more than 10 percent a 
year over the last 3 years, it is time to take a break, it is time to 
slow down. So the RSC budget does not say, let us freeze for 1 year, 
let us have a small, modest 1 percent cut in nondefense, 
nondiscretionary spending.
  Make no mistake about it, they want to raise taxes. It is not about 
cutting spending, it is about not increasing spending, which is what 
their budget does.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to build on the comments by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) because he made them so well.
  In Washington, a cut, the definition of a cut and listen to this, if 
you ask for one thing and it is an increase and you do not quite get 
the increase you want, then you are cut.
  It is like my son, and I hope he is not listening. If my son came to 
me and he asked me for a $10-a-month allowance, and I only gave him an 
$8 allowance, would it be fair for him to scream that he was being cut 
$2? Of course not, because that is just not the way things work. It 
does not make sense.
  In Washington, however, when you do not get the anticipated increase 
you ask for, you can scream bloody murder that you have been cut. 
Unfortunately, time and time again Members come to the well or the 
floor here and they say we have been cut, we are gouging or we are 
eliminating spending, when in fact all we are saying is let us not grow 
as fast.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for putting together 
such a great budget. I also thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) 
for working so hard to keep spending under control on the nondefense 
discretionary side.
  The talk about what is a cut and what is not is intriguing. I think 
my kids if they knew how much a cut meant in terms of extra income, 
they would ask for a cut in their allowance every day. If we look over 
the last decade and what the Democrats are calling a cut, we have 
actually increased spending five- and sixfold at times.

                              {time}  1500

  So it is not a cut at all. But I just appreciate this budget, the RSC 
budget, because we are actually doing what we said we would do when we 
came to Washington. When we came to Washington, we said that we were 
going to restrain the growth of spending. This budget actually does 
that. The Democrat budget, the Democrat alternatives, every one of them 
does not do that. They actually increase spending and increase taxes. 
So if we really want to restrain growth in government, we have got to 
actually see some reductions. That is what the RSC budget does. I 
appreciate the gentleman for bringing it forward. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my remaining 
time in opposition be allowed to be split, 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), 3 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and that they be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Again, budgets are about values. They are about priorities. 
This is a budget that indeed values less government and more freedom. 
It prioritizes the family budget over the Federal budget. We have had a 
lot of talk about the deficit, and the deficit is a very serious 
problem in our Nation. But the deficit again, Mr. Chairman, is a 
symptom. Spending is the disease in our society. By any measure, it is 
spending

[[Page 5304]]

which is out of control. When we are spending over $20,000 per American 
household for the first time since World War II and for only the fourth 
time in our Nation's history, spending is out of control. We hear about 
all of these massive cuts. But, Mr. Chairman, I do not see them. Since 
1995, Medicare spending is up 54.6 percent. Medicaid spending is up 89 
percent; Labor-HHS-Education appropriations since 1998 are up 71.6 
percent; Interior appropriations in the same time period are up 42.1 
percent. And the list goes on, always outstripping the rate of 
inflation.
  But, unfortunately, the same is not true with the family budget. 
Since I have been on the face of the planet, the Federal budget has 
grown seven times faster than the family budget. I believe this is an 
unsustainable and unconscionable growth rate. It is time for us to 
finally protect the family budget from the Federal budget.
  By adopting the Republican Study Committee alternative, we take the 
first step towards doing that. We have had a lot of debate about tax 
relief as well, and we certainly have a philosophical debate with our 
friends on the other side of the aisle. But, Mr. Chairman, once again, 
we have cut tax rates; and guess what, we have more tax revenues 
because we have given tax relief to small businesses, we have given tax 
relief to families. They have gone out, they have rolled up their 
sleeves, they have created new businesses, they have expanded their 
businesses. This should not be news. The same was true during the 
Reagan administration. We cut rates, and we had more tax revenue. The 
same was true in the Kennedy administration. It is the thing to do when 
you are facing a recession, put money in the pockets of the people.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle speak about spending 
priorities. I, too, want to spend more money on housing. I want to 
spend more money on nutrition. I want to spend more money on health 
care. I am just not indifferent as to who does the spending. Democrats 
want the government to do the spending. We want families to do the 
spending. And we know the difference. The family is who needs to be 
protected in this budget process, Mr. Chairman. Once again there is 
only one budget here, one budget that will actually reduce the size of 
government, and that is the Republican Study Committee alternative.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, if budgets are indeed about 
values and priorities, this is a budget that values less government and 
more freedom. It is a budget which prioritizes the family budget over 
the Federal budget. I encourage my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just said that we have cut taxes and 
revenues have gone up. In fact, taxes were cut in 2001. Revenues, 
individual income taxes were $994 billion that year. The next year they 
went down to $858 billion. The next year down to $793 billion. This 
year the estimate is $765 billion, well below the $994 billion level 
when taxes were cut on individuals. The facts simply do not bear out 
the statement he made.
  Let me also straighten out some other facts. First with respect to 
Medicare. The chairman, in putting together his mark, decided that he 
would adopt the CBO baseline for Medicare spending as opposed to the 
OMB baseline, which was $535 billion. CBO is $400 billion. So ignoring 
the President's actuaries, he put in the lower number. We, in order to 
have an apples-to-apples comparison with that resolution, have adopted 
the CBO baseline. Also, there is no difference between us in Medicare 
benefit spending. However, because the administration of the program 
can be improved, we provide $805 million more over 5 years for Medicare 
administration.
  Also, on the mandatory side, we provide $8 billion for the Family 
Opportunity Act, an act that has enjoyed bipartisan support because it 
provides Medicaid coverage to children with special needs in families 
who otherwise would not qualify for Medicaid and cannot obtain private 
insurance. This is compassionate conservatism. We provided $8 billion 
to fund that program so we can finally get it established, and we added 
two more provisions in our budget resolution.
  First, we said if the price of Medicare, in fact, exceeds $400 
billion, then the prohibition against negotiating drug prices included 
in the Medicare prescription drug law should be suspended and we should 
negotiate lower prices. Secondly, we said take some of the excessive 
subsidies provided for the HMOs and redeploy that money. In the 
Committee on Ways and Means, we have got reconciliation instructions to 
that effect. Redeploy that money to make the Medicare prescription drug 
benefit better. We have a manifestly better set of provisions for 
Medicare and Medicaid in our budget resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I thank the ranking member for yielding time 
and thank him for his leadership throughout this whole process.
  Mr. Chairman, a budget resolution is all about priorities. I think 
few people here would disagree that education has to be one of our top 
priorities. All we have to do is look around at what is happening 
today. We have jobs being shipped overseas. We are retooling some of 
our manufacturing plants. What are our jobs going to be in the future? 
What do they require? The one thing we know they require is a good 
education. This underlying budget and the alternative fail our 
children, fail to provide the investment we need in our future.
  Last Congress, we passed sweeping education reforms. We said we want 
to have the best educated children in the world. We want to make sure 
that they live up to our expectations. But part of that agreement was 
funding. This budget leaves children behind. It does not fund Leave No 
Child Behind. We promised 29 years ago we were going to make sure that 
children with disabilities, that that was funded so our local schools 
would not have to pick up the whole piece of that. Last year in our 
Budget Committee we said, this is a good idea, Republicans and 
Democrats agreed that we should fully fund IDEA; and we said, we are 
going to have it done by 2010. This year if you look at the budget 
starting in 2005, it increases by a half a percent a year, which means 
we will never get there. We said it is important to make sure that our 
students have higher education, that that is important. Yet we have not 
increased Pell grants.
  The budget is a reflection of our national priorities. Our 
alternative does better at meeting those priorities than the Republican 
budget. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican budget and 
support the Democratic alternative.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 90]

                               AYES--116

     Akin
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     English
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline

[[Page 5305]]


     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Weller
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--309

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Abercrombie
     Hoeffel
     Lucas (KY)
     McInnis
     Pence
     Quinn
     Tanner
     Tauzin


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1532

  Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mrs. BONO, and Mr. EVERETT changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MILLER of Florida, CRANE, FORBES, SULLIVAN, McCRERY, and 
RAMSTAD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

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

                              {time}  1530

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


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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2014:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,272,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,468,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,637,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,759,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,854,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,965,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,075,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,290,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,494,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,628,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,773,500,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: -$100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$8,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$16,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $4,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $8,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $12,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $12,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $8,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $10,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $10,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $11,600,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,958,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,031,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,087,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,220,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,343,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,470,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,576,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,699,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,778,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,905,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,033,300,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $1,917,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,015,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,094,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,194,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,305,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,427,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,542,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,674,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,746,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,879,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,006,300,000,000.

[[Page 5306]]

       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: -$644,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: -$547,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: -$456,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: -$434,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: -$451,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: -$461,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: -$467,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: -$383,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: -$251,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$250,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$232,900,000,000.
       (5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $7,442,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $8,090,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,671,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,227,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,799,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,384,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,978,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $11,488,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,880,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,267,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $12,638,200,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2004: $4,392,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,778,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,055,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,295,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,535,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,772,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $6,001,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $6,133,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $6,125,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $6,107,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $6,066,700,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2004 through 2014 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $463,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $453,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $422,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $445,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $441,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $466,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $488,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $467,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $510,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $522,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $508,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $533,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $528,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $545,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $534,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $558,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $551,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $572,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $564,000,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,900,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,700,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       (A) New budget authority,
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,800,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,400,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,500,000,000.

[[Page 5307]]

       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,200,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,000,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,700,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $108,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,000,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $241,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $239,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $254,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $250,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $259,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $259,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $274,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $273,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $294,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $316,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $313,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $337,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $336,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $359,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $386,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $415,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $446,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $445,500,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $269,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $268,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $288,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $289,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $323,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $322,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $363,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $388,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $388,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $442,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $443,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $479,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $479,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $505,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $505,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $551,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $551,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $596,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $596,700,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $335,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $342,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $343,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $346,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $343,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $345,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $348,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $350,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $374,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $375,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $386,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $386,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $403,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $403,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $393,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $394,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $408,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $408,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $419,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $419,800,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,000,000,000.

[[Page 5308]]

       (B) Outlays, $18,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,800,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,800,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,300,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,600,000,000.
       (18) Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $240,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $240,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $270,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $270,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $318,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $318,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $364,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $397,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $397,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $426,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $452,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $452,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $474,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $474,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $493,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $493,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $507,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $507,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $522,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $522,400,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2004:
       (A) New budget authority, -$47,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$59,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$59,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$61,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$64,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$64,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$61,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$63,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$66,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$68,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$71,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $-73,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-73,800,000,000.

            TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

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

       (a) Submission.--Not later than October 1, 2004, the House 
     Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation 
     bill to the House adjusting revenues in such amounts 
     necessary to meet the revenue targets contained in section 2 
     of this resolution.
       (b) Policy Assumptions.--It is the policy of this budget 
     resolution to balance deficit reduction with middle-income 
     tax relief. Such tax policies shall include but not be 
     limited to provisions that--
       (1) extend the child tax credit;
       (2) extend marriage penalty relief;
       (C) extend the 10 percent individual tax bracket;
       (4) provide relief from the alternative minimum tax for 
     middle-income taxpayers;
       (5) eliminate estate taxes on all but the very largest 
     estates by reforming and substantially increasing the unified 
     credit;

[[Page 5309]]

       (6) extend the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit and 
     other expiring tax provisions;
       (7) accelerate refundability of the child tax credit to 
     fifteen percent in 2004 and include combat pay in determining 
     refundability in 2004 and all years thereafter;
       (8) preserve American manufacturing jobs consistent with 
     the objectives delineated in H.R. 3827, the Job Protection 
     Act of 2004;
       (9) close corporate tax avoidance devices and eliminate 
     expatriation schemes for individuals and corporations such 
     as, but not limited to, those provisions included in the 
     President's budget;
       (10) reduce the tax cuts resulting from provisions 
     contained in 2001 and 2003 tax legislation passed by Congress 
     for taxpayers with annual adjusted gross income (AGI) over 
     $500,000; and
       (11) make new or extended tax cuts subject to PAYGO offset 
     requirements.
       (c) Flexibility for the Committee on Ways and Means.--If 
     the reconciliation bill reported by the Committee on Ways and 
     Means alters the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in ways that 
     are scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation as outlay 
     changes, as through legislation affecting refundable tax 
     credits, the bill shall be considered to meet the revenue 
     requirements of the reconciliation directive if the net cost 
     of the revenue and outlay changes does not exceed the revenue 
     amount indicated for that committee in subsection (a). Upon 
     the reporting of such legislation, the chairman of the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall adjust the budget aggregates in 
     this resolution and allocations made under this resolution 
     accordingly.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 204. COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES.

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

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

                       Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 303. RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSITIONAL MEDICAID ASSISTANCE.

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

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

       In the House, if legislation is reported, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides affordable, comprehensive health 
     insurance to the uninsured and builds upon and strengthens 
     public and private coverage, and prevents the erosion of 
     existing coverage under Medicaid, which could include 
     temporary extension of state fiscal relief by increasing the 
     Medicaid match rate, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may make the appropriate adjustments in allocations 
     and aggregates to the extent such measure is deficit neutral 
     (whether by changes in revenues or direct spending) in fiscal 
     year 2005 and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009.

                   Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

     SEC. 311. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--If the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House reports legislation, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides new budget authority for the 
     budget accounts or portions thereof in the highway and 
     transit categories as defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and 
     (C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985 in excess of the following amounts:
       (1) for fiscal year 2004: $41,569,000,000,
       (2) for fiscal year 2005: $42,657,000,000,
       (3) for fiscal year 2006: $43,635,000,000,
       (4) for fiscal year 2007: $45,709,000,000,
       (5) for fiscal year 2008: $46,945,000,000, or
       (6) for fiscal year 2009: $47,732,000,000,
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2004, 
     for fiscal year 2005, and for the period of fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 to the extent such excess is offset by a 
     reduction in mandatory outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or 
     an increase in receipts appropriated to such fund for the 
     applicable fiscal year caused by such legislation or any 
     previously enacted legislation.
       (b) Adjustment for Outlays.--For fiscal year 2004 or 2005, 
     in the House, if a bill or

[[Page 5310]]

     joint resolution is reported, or if an amendment thereto is 
     offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that 
     changes obligation limitations such that the total 
     limitations are in excess of $40,116,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2004 or $41,204,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 for programs, 
     projects, and activities within the highway and transit 
     categories as defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     and if legislation has been enacted that satisfies the 
     conditions set forth in subsection (a) for such fiscal year, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may increase the 
     allocation of outlays and appropriate aggregates for such 
     fiscal year for the committee reporting such measure by the 
     amount of outlays that corresponds to such excess obligation 
     limitations, but not to exceed the amount of such excess that 
     was offset pursuant to subsection (a).

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

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

       (a)  Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that 
     would increase the budget deficit or reduce the budget 
     surplus for any of the following periods:
       (1) The first year covered by the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (2) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the 
     most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (3) The period of the first 10 fiscal years covered in the 
     most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (b) Direct-Spending Legislation.--
       (1) Definition.--For purposes of this section and except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), the term "direct-spending 
     legislation" means any bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     motion, or conference report that affects direct spending as 
     that term is defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (2) Exclusion.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``direct-spending legislation'' and ``revenue legislation'' 
     do not include--
       (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget; or
       (B) any provision of legislation that affects the full 
     funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance 
     guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of 
     the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
       (c) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and 
     revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis 
     of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House.

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) continuing the TRICARE for Reservists is a high 
     priority which should not have been omitted from the 
     President's budget request;
       (2) continuing targeted pay increases for enlisted 
     personnel for three additional years is also a high priority 
     which should not have been omitted from the President's 
     budget request, because it is consistent with the original 
     proposal of the Department of Defense and critical to the 
     retention of experienced military personnel;
       (3) eliminating the Social Security offset to the Military 
     Survivor Benefit Program is also a high priority which should 
     not have been omitted from the President's budget request, 
     and accommodating the discretionary accrual payment that is 
     concomitant to eliminating the offset is consistent with 
     governmental accounting practices;
       (4) funding cooperative threat reduction and nuclear 
     nonproliferation programs at a level adequate to the task and 
     the risks posed to our Nation is also a high priority, and 
     the President's budget does not request sufficient funding;
       (5) providing for homeland security is also a high 
     priority, and the President's request

[[Page 5311]]

     is insufficient, reducing funds for high-risk activities like 
     seaport security and underfunding first responders;
       (6) funding the Missile Defense Agency at the level enacted 
     for 2004 will provide robust support for ballistic missile 
     defense;
       (7) improving financial management at the Department of 
     Defense should help identify billions of dollars of 
     obligations and disbursements which the General Accounting 
     Office has found that the Department of Defense cannot 
     account for, and should result in substantial annual savings;
       (8) improving the award, oversight, and administration of 
     nearly $20 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of 
     Iraq with firms such as Halliburton, and recouping 
     overpayments and penalties, by auditing and investigating 
     such contracts, diligently applying the Truth-in-Negotiations 
     Act, should result in substantial savings; and
       (9) all savings that accrue from the actions recommended in 
     paragraphs (6) through (9) should be used to fund higher 
     priorities within the national security function of the 
     budget, function 50, and especially those high priorities 
     identified in paragraphs (1) through (5).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the 2001 Interior Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-
     291), which established a separate discretionary spending 
     category for land conservation and natural resource 
     protection programs for the fiscal years 2001 through 2006, 
     passed by large margins in both the House and the Senate; and
       (2) in establishing a separate conservation spending 
     category, Congress recognized the chronic underfunding of 
     programs that protect and enhance public lands, wildlife 
     habitats, urban parks, historic and cultural landmarks, and 
     coastal ecosystems.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     any law establishing new caps on discretionary spending 
     should include a separate conservation spending category and 
     that any caps on conservation spending for fiscal years 2005 
     or 2006 should be set at the levels established in Public Law 
     106-291.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5312]]

     in the context of tax reform that makes the Federal tax code 
     simpler and fairer to all taxpayers.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5313]]

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

                              {time}  1545

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

[[Page 5314]]

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

[[Page 5315]]

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

                              {time}  1600

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

[[Page 5316]]

those families you have just lamented $1.2 trillion over the course of 
the Democratic substitute, $1.2 trillion of tax increases. Why would we 
go through there? I thought, wait a minute, I thought the gentleman 
knew the song. He was talking the right words. He was saying the right 
words, but I thought he learned the music too. The music to this is 
reduce taxes, keep them low, keep spending under control, look for 
waste. That is what the budget that we have presented does, not 
increase taxes as the Democrat substitute does.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, not only did we cut the taxes in 1993 and 
1997 in our budget this time, it resulted in 22 million jobs, a 
reduction in poverty, a reduction in those who were without health 
insurance. And today under your economic stewardship, 2.5 million 
Americans have lost their jobs, 43 million Americans are without health 
care, 2 more million Americans are in fact in poverty that used to be 
in the middle class, and a trillion dollars worth of corporate assets 
have been foreclosed on.
  These are the economic results of your economic plan. It does not set 
priorities. It assumes all tax cuts are equal. And if you think a tax 
cut allowing a corporate jet to fly around when children of working 
families do not get a tax cut, those are the wrong priorities that 
resulted in the economic losses that you have on your record. The 90s 
were the best economic period of time; $550 billion of deficit cannot 
be erased in a 1-minute speech.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, there is not an economist in the country, not one 
economist who does not say that the economic recession that we had to 
face began under President Clinton. President George Bush inherited the 
recession from President Clinton. We worked to reduce it and get it 
back on a growth path, which we have done.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman was off the floor when I read 
page 87, title II, section 201, outlining the tax cuts that we are 
calling for and stating the purpose of the resolution, which is to 
preserve and serve middle-income tax relief.
  I would defy the gentleman to take this and in the four corners of 
this report show me where the $1.2 trillion additional tax increases 
are coming from. How is that number derived?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to myself.
  The way that is computed, I would say to my friend, the way of course 
that is computes is we believe that by allowing a tax increase to occur 
automatically, that that is a tax increase. So we start with that and 
then above that is over the CBO baseline. So that is where we come up 
with $1.2 trillion over the 10 years of your budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), look, part of the reason why we are having this 
discussion is that there are so many people coming to the floor 
complaining about tax cuts for the rich. We know what you are up to.
  I understand that rhetorically, not the gentleman necessarily, but we 
believe within the party what you are up to, that is, you want to, what 
you say, is reduce this tax for the highest income tax bracket. I 
understand that is not what your budget says, but I am saying that is 
what the votes say on the floor time and time again as they come to the 
well, and that is, that when that is targeted at that bracket, what you 
are targeting, we believe, are small businesses which are creating 
those jobs.
  I understand that nobody wants to kill those jobs, but when people in 
small business are paying at that tax bracket, we believe that kills 
jobs. And that is why we do not allow those tax increases to expire. We 
believe that would be a tax increase.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself.
  The only bracket we refer to is the bracket that would include those 
making over, earning, having incomes over $500,000 a year, which is our 
definition of a wealthy person. So we are saying do not take all the 
benefits away from those taxpayers that have been provided by the 2001 
and 2003 tax cuts, but consider cutting them in half, for example, in 
order to raise the revenues, to offset the costs of extending middle-
income tax provisions like the 10 percent bracket, the child tax credit 
and the marital penalty provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, what a difference a week makes. A week ago 
and one day from today this House passed unanimously a resolution 
saying that we should express our gratitude for the ``valiant service 
of our troops in Iraq.'' And yet today the House Republican leadership 
in order to continue its failed status quo policies that led to the 
highest deficit in American history, the worst job growth since the 
Hoover administration, has once again gone so far as to honor our 
troops, our future veterans with their words but cut the budget for 
veterans health care with their deeds.
  That is not the viewpoint of a Democrat or a Republican. That is the 
view point of the American Legion. Steve Robertson, director of the 
American Legion, said in a letter, in the last 2 days, the American 
Legion has activated its grassroots lobbying efforts to defeat H. Con. 
Res. 393, the budget resolution for FY 05 through fiscal year 09.
  Well, let us look at what the Disabled American Veterans said. Their 
national commander, Alan Bowers, said, ``To the veterans of this 
Nation, it is incomprehensible that our government cannot afford to 
fund their medical care and benefit programs at a time it can afford 
generous tax cuts costing hundreds of billions more.''
  AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, all of them are saying what 
the American people believe. It is wrong and it is unfair to cut 
veterans health care services by $1.3 billion, as this budget does, to 
pay for a failed economic policy.
  We must support our troops in Iraq today who are tomorrow's veterans 
with our deeds, not just our words.
  Once again, as we saw last March, the Republicans have come to the 
floor of the House and during the same month they vote to salute our 
troops with resolutions, they vote to cut our troops' future health 
care benefits with their budget votes.
  The reality is while they may argue they are increasing veterans 
health care, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs says this budget resolution will cut veterans health care by 
$1.3 billion this year.
  Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, liberal, moderate or 
conservative, north, south, east or west, it does not reflect the 
values of the American people to be asking for more sacrifice from 
those troops in Iraq today who are already risking their limbs and 
lives.
  And I know about that because I was in Baghdad. I was in Iraq. I have 
saw American soldiers who had been wounded in Iraq. I saw them in 
German hospitals. They have given enough for our country. Republicans 
in this House have no right to ask them to give more by having their 
veterans health care services cut by over a billion dollars and by $21 
billion over 5 years. That is wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the managers the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start by letting the committee know and the 
House know that we have a letter from Secretary Principi on the subject 
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) just spoke about.
  Let me just read from the letter and I will be glad to make this 
available as it was just made available to me:
  ``I write to strongly endorse the House passage of H. Con. Res. 
393,'' this budget. ``The President's budgets have

[[Page 5317]]

provided historic funding levels for America's veterans today. The 
Veterans Administration provides nearly a million more veterans with 
better, faster health care than when the President took office.''

                              {time}  1615

  So just in the last 3 years, 1 million more veterans have been 
invited into the VA than under former President Clinton.
  ``The President pledged to reduce the average processing time to 100 
days and reduce the inventory of pending claims to 250,000. The 
Department is on track to meet those goals.
  ``When the President entered office, VA was providing care to 
slightly under 4 million veterans. Now, at a time when the overall 
population of veterans is declining,'' and that is unfortunate, 
``nearly 5 million patients are being treated. The President's budget 
reflects his strong commitment on preserving the core mission of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.''
  He salutes the Congress, he says, and he strongly urges Members to 
vote for this budget resolution.
  A couple of other things I just wanted to mention with regard to 
veterans spending. The House level for veterans spending is the highest 
amount between the two bodies that we will have an opportunity to 
support. The House version is higher than the Senate version because 
the Senate, when it passed an amendment on the floor, included 
unspecified receipts, which is an interesting budget code word for 
copayments, fee increases, means testing. Those are ways that we get 
those unspecified receipts to be specified.
  The result is that, together with Secretary Principi, the House 
budget we present today is $1.2 billion above the President's request 
to meet the request that Secretary Principi provided to the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on the Budget. If my colleagues 
want to support a higher veterans spending amount, they need to support 
the amount that is provided in this bill.
  Veterans organizations are getting snookered out there by being told 
that the Senate number is somehow higher than the House number. That 
could not be further from the truth. When you hide fees, when you hide 
means testing, when you hide copayments into an amendment and then pass 
it, that is not necessarily a higher amount because in our bill, in our 
budget, we do not accept any fee increases, any copayments, or any 
means testing to this program. It is a higher amount than the other 
body, and it needs our support.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, at the request of 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), to manage time until he 
returns to the floor.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think the AMVETS, the Disabled American 
Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
the American Legion, distinguished respected veterans groups who fought 
in all parts of this world, its millions of members are snookered by 
this legislation. I think they understand exactly what this legislation 
is doing. It is not keeping up with health care inflation, and it will 
require a cut of $1.3 billion in veterans health care services.
  If the Republicans in the Congress think veterans get health care 
that is too good and the lines are too short at our VA hospital, so be 
it. I think it is the American people that would be snookered by the 
passage of a resolution such as this, not our veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Houston, 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my Texas colleague for 
yielding me the time, and I have a prepared statement I would like to 
place into the Record.
  It is interesting, all of our constituents think we talk about funny 
money here in Washington when it is really their money, but I look at 
our budget and see there are funny budgets; and I need to remind my 
colleagues of the prescription drug budget $400 billion last year, that 
could be as much as $150 billion above that, and the seniors around the 
country are rejecting it simply because it is not a quality program. So 
I worry about what we are seeing.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative and in 
opposition to the Republican budget resolution. The Republican majority 
breaks a number of long-standing promises to my Texas community, 
seniors, students and veterans.
  The budget breaks our promise to Texas seniors by spending the entire 
$1 trillion Social Security surplus. This continual use of Social 
Security to fund the administration's deficits and tax cuts is not 
sustainable, and even prompted Alan Greenspan to suggest we cut 
entitlement programs or raise the age of Social Security.
  The budget breaks our promise to Texas students by providing $8.8 
billion below the authorized level for No Child Left Behind.
  Despite the rising costs of college tuition, this budget fails to 
provide any increase in the maximum Pell grants which 313,832 students 
in Texas universities use to help finance their education.
  The budget breaks our promise to Texas children by allowing $1 
billion in funds for the State Children's Health Initiative Program, 
SCHIP, to expire. Already, hundreds of thousands of Texas children are 
dropped from the SCHIP program, and we are going to see it even more.
  The budget breaks our promise to veterans, as just discussed, by $1.3 
billion, short of what we need for veterans health care. The Vietnam 
Veterans of America called the Bush budget an insult to veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic alternative 
and in opposition to the Republican budget resolution.
  The Republican majority breaks long-standing promises to Texas 
communities, seniors, students and veterans.
  The budget breaks our promise to Texas seniors by spending the entire 
$1 trillion Social Security surplus from 2005 to 2009.
  This continual use of the Social Security to fund the 
Administration's deficits and tax cuts is not sustainable and has 
prompted Alan Greenspan to suggest that we cut entitlement programs or 
raise the Social Security age.
  The budget breaks our promise to Texas students by providing $8.8 
billion below the authorized level for No Child Left Behind programs.
  Despite the rising costs of college tuition, this budget fails to 
provide any increase in the maximum Pell grant awards, which 313,832 
students in Texas universities use to help finance their education.
  The budget breaks our promise to Texas children by allowing $1 
billion in funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
(SCHIP) to expire.
  Already, hundreds of thousands of Texas children have been dropped 
from the State's CHIP program, and this budget will only cause more 
Texas children to lose health insurance during a time when health care 
costs are rising rapidly.
  The budget breaks our promise to Texas veterans by providing $1.3 
billion less than what is needed for veterans' health care programs.
  The Vietnam Veterans of America have called the Bush budget ``an 
insult to veterans.''
  The budget breaks our promise to Texas communities by cutting 
homeland security funding at a time of increased security needs.
  Houston is the only city in the U.S. to meet all fifteen Federal 
threat criteria, yet this budget provides no resources to address a 
shortage in first responder or port security funding.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the 
Democratic alternative, which funds this country's priorities in a 
fiscally- responsible manner.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just give my colleagues this again on veterans health care. 
Overall spending for veterans medical care has grown significantly in 
recent years. The Congressional Research Service estimates that it has 
increased from $17.8 billion in 1999 to $28.3 billion in 2004. That is 
9 percent a year of increases, and we will continue that as we move 
forward into the future.

[[Page 5318]]

  Since 1999, spending on veterans medical care has increased from $16 
billion to $28 billion a year, a 75 percent increase; and over the past 
2 years, appropriation for veterans medical care increased rapidly, by 
11 percent in last year alone.
  To come to the floor and suggest today that we are not meeting our 
promises to veterans is based on the veterans service organizations and 
what they call their independent budget. Look, I will tell my 
colleagues the same thing I tell them and tell my veterans at home. 
They, of course, have earned the right to request any amount they 
believe they deserve. That is not the issue. Of course they have the 
right to make that request.
  Our job, though, is to make sure that we fund and we make sure we are 
meeting the demands of veterans, and veterans under President Bush have 
gotten not only a promise fulfilled, but we are helping to ensure that 
the lines are shorter; that the care is better; and that it is 
delivered to as many veterans as possible under this bill. We continue 
that promise, and we do it at a faster rate than the other body.
  The veterans service organizations have been alerting Members because 
they thought mistakenly that the Senate had a higher number than the 
House. That is the reason that they were agitating over this; but when 
they have read it, when we have read it and when others independently 
have read it, they discovered that there are these unanticipated fees, 
unanticipated receipts, possibly means testing, possibly all sorts of 
things that are hidden in there in order to make that number look just 
a little bit bigger.
  Well, we are not going to do that to our veterans. We have already 
rejected that proposal; and as a result, the highest number that my 
colleagues can support is for the House base bill presented by the 
Republicans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


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

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

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

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

[[Page 5319]]

time of war. That is wrong and it is unfair, and it is why veterans 
groups are asking for the defeat of this unfair budget resolution.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Okay, Members do not believe The Washington Post, we will go back to 
the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. The Washington Post 
may be understandably grumpy that Democrats are not standing with them, 
but we will get back to that in a minute.
  I want to show Members what was going on during the time when 
President Clinton was in charge of the VA budget. Look at that flat 
line. Look at that flat line for veterans. Look what happened when 
President Bush took office, look how we have been increasing it.
  It is one thing to come down here and claim what a terrible job 
Republicans are doing and what a terrible job that has meant for VA 
health care, but here are the facts: Under Republican control, under 
Republican Presidents, VA health care has gone up.
  But it is not just the number for health care, look at the number of 
veterans that we are serving. During this period of time, the budget 
authority for veterans' medical care, look how we are serving more 
veterans.
  Back during that Clinton period, which is the red period, we were not 
serving as many as we are now. That is why this is a good budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
am prepared to begin the closing arguments, if I may reserve the time 
not yet used and add it to the 5 minutes for closure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 5\1/
2\ minutes remaining on this amendment, and the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

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

[[Page 5320]]

show that defense was going up by $1.3 trillion. That assumes that the 
cost of Iraq ends this year; hopefully, it will, but that is doubtful. 
If it does not this could easily be $1.5 trillion over and above where 
we were a couple of years ago.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has expired.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from South Carolina 
may proceed for 1 additional minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, we have come up with a budget which takes 
these difficult facts and, number one, tries to set a target date for 
bringing the budget to balance. We do that in 2012.
  Secondly, we have tried to bring the deficit in at lower and lower 
rates each year, and lower than our opposition, the Republican budget 
on the floor. We have succeeded in doing that. We adopt the full PAYGO 
bill. As a consequence of what we propose in our budget resolution, we 
bring the budget to balance in 2012.
  At the same time, within this fiscal framework, we provide for 
middle-income tax relief, we provide more for education, more for 
veterans' health care, more for science under the NSF function of the 
budget, for example, more for the National Institutes of Health, more 
for health care.
  Usually we are bringing spending back up to baseline. It is not a 
great deal more, but it is more in almost every respect, proving we can 
deal with the deficit without pulling up the drawbridge. We can be 
compassionate conservatives, conservative in the sense that we bring 
the budget to balance, compassionate in the sense that we deal with the 
needs of the American people and our country and do not turn our backs 
on them.
  This is a good resolution we are offering as a substitute. It is 
fiscally and morally responsible, and I urge that every Member vote for 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time of the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle) is also extended by 1 minute.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise Members that the 10 minutes of 
debate remaining after the vote is taken on this amendment is general 
debate time and cannot be extended in the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, I would like to extend my congratulations to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is my friend and 
colleague on the Committee on the Budget, for coming up with an 
alternative, the Democratic leadership substitute. As the gentleman 
knows and as I know, it is not easy to come up with a budget blueprint.
  As I said at the outset of the debate, it is like when that family or 
couple goes to visit the architect and they have to come to grips with 
exactly what they can afford and what they want as far as what the home 
looks like, what the layout looks like. And it is a hard job to set a 
blueprint, but without a blueprint, it is pretty tough when the 
carpenters show up to do their work. It is a mess if the budget is not 
set out ahead of time exactly where the budget needs to go and exactly 
how you are going to get there.
  That is why I compliment all Members who came today with a full 
budget substitute to the floor.
  I would also like to thank our staff which does an awesome job of 
preparing us for debate, and preparing the budget itself. Tom Kahn and 
Rich Meade from the minority and majority staffs, they keep us in line 
and give us good information. We appreciate the job that they do in 
getting us prepared for this, and they have more work to do getting us 
to a conference report between ourselves and the other body.

                              {time}  1645

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

[[Page 5321]]

Washington that common sense is often missed.
  We define compassion in Washington by how much you are willing to 
spend. I have even fallen into that trap today. I have to confess that 
I have even fallen into that trap today, trying to convince veterans 
that because we are spending more money we must care more. That is not 
the definition. Or because we are spending more money in education, 
that somehow we care more. That is not the definition. Or somehow if we 
spend more money on farmers or spend more money on seniors or spend 
more money here or spend more money there, somehow that defines 
compassion. It does not. Oftentimes that money is wasted and wasted in 
ways that just frustrate the very people we are trying to help.
  So let us not kill the jobs at the very moment in time. Spending is 
out of control. Before we even talk about another year's budget, look 
where we have come. Every single year, more and more and more spending. 
Where does that money come from? It comes from the pocketbooks of every 
American in this country. And so when the Democrats come to the floor 
and they say, When you're in a hole, stop digging, I say to you, We are 
stopping the digging. We are holding the line on spending. What I want 
you to do is stop digging in the pockets of families, farmers, 
ranchers, small business-
people, and Americans across the country who are tired of paying more 
and more for wasteful Washington spending.
  They are saying enough is enough, do with what you can, with what we 
have sent you, do a better job with what you already have. Do not ask 
us for more. That is why our budget does not increase taxes; it holds 
the line on spending. It says, let's look through the garden of all the 
different programs of our country and let's start looking for those 
weeds, let's start pulling those weeds, let's look for the waste, let's 
look for ways to trim that spending, just like every family and 
business across the country. We have had way too much spending that we 
are building on from the past.
  One last thing I want to talk about on spending quickly. Oftentimes 
Members will hear that we are cutting spending, but in Washington, it 
is a code word. It is a code word for decreasing an anticipated 
increase. It is just like when my son comes to me and says, Dad, I want 
10 bucks a week for allowance and I only give him 8. Is it fair for him 
to scream that that is a $2 cut? No, of course it is not. Only in 
Washington would a decrease in an anticipated increase or a desired 
increase or a wanted increase be called a cut. All of these accounts 
that we have been spending money on, many of which have been increasing 
at astronomical rates, we are building on a huge baseline as we move 
forward.
  Last but not least, let me just say that I believe that this budget 
that we have put together does not do harm to our Nation's security. 
The most important issue, job one, is making sure our country's freedom 
is protected. If we are not free, there is not a word of this 
discussion that has made any difference at all, on my side or yours. If 
our country is not free, if we are not protected, if we are not strong, 
it does not matter what we do here today.
  So vote for the underlying Republican budget, vote against the Spratt 
substitute, and let us make sure that we get to a balanced budget in 
the very near future.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the Republican Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2005 and 
my support for the Democratic Substitute.
  Given the state of our economy and skyrocketing deficit, now is not 
the time to engage in more irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy. But 
this is what has dominated the Bush Administration and the Republican 
Leadership's agenda from the beginning. They did this in spite of the 
many competing needs facing our country such as homeland security, 
healthcare, education, and veteran's issues.
  The Democratic alternative that we are debating now instead chooses 
to invest in our nation. I would like to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina, Rep. John Spratt, for his leadership on developing a 
realistic budget plan for our Nation.


                           Homeland Security

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


                             Small Business

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


                                Veterans

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


                               Education

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


                            Higher Education

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


                            Working Families

  The Republican proposal severely leaves behind America's working 
families. Two years ago, Congress enacted the Temporary Extended 
Unemployment Compensation (TEUC)

[[Page 5322]]

program to provide 13 weeks of benefits for workers who exhaust regular 
state unemployment benefits before finding a job.
  The unemployment insurance program is one of the greatest proposals 
Congress has ever passed to help workers during this struggling 
economy. The Democratic proposal would help the more than 760,000 
jobless workers who have exhausted their state benefits by extending 
the program until June. Additionally, it would provide funding to 
maintain Section 8 housing programs and restore Hope VI funds for much 
needed public housing restoration.


                               Healthcare

  With 42 million uninsured Americans, we must look to improving our 
deteriorated public healthcare infrastructure system. It is in 
everyone's best interest--local governments, health districts, schools, 
hospitals, and the business community--to focus on healthcare. Because 
while we often think of healthcare as a deficiency, as something that 
sucks money away from other projects, we should instead think of it as 
an investment.
  The House Republican budget however contains dangerous a dangerous 
provision that will cut Medicaid and SCHIP funds by up to $2.2 billion. 
These cuts are unacceptable given the tremendous strain already facing 
our nation's health care system. Furthermore, cuts to Medicare will 
have a disproportionate impact on border residents. Border communities 
continue to face double-digit poverty rates and most have been 
classified as medically underserved areas. Any funding decrease for our 
safety net programs will have a detrimental affect on families and 
children living in this region.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic plan invests in the very institutions 
that make our country great--small business, healthcare, our education 
system. And it invests appropriate funding into our defense system and 
homeland security. It is time for us to clean up our House and get our 
priorities straight--I urge Members to vote in favor of the Spratt 
substitute.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Republican budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 393, and in support of the 
Spratt Democratic Alternative Budget.
  Mr. Chairman, to call the Republican budget resolution a budget is 
really a stretch. As we all understand budgets, basically, they are 
supposed to reflect meaningful spending priorities, incorporate sound 
fiscal policy and in the end to balance themselves. The Republican and 
Bush budgets fail on all these points and needless to say the American 
people will suffer as a result.
  Let me lay out why this is such a travesty. When the Bush 
Administration took office, the nation was in the proverbial days of 
milk and honey. The budget was experiencing a third year of record 
surplus and most of us in Congress were elated with the prospect of 
putting a permanent lockbox on the Social Security Trust Fund--all 
while keeping the nation's budget in the black at least until 2011.
  Those of us who adhere to budgets, know that you always have to save 
money for a rainy day, but apparently Republicans skipped this life 
lesson. In fact, they managed to squander the $521 billion surplus and 
shepherd through $1.7 trillion in irresponsible tax cuts. We are now 
facing a deficit of $521 billion this year and debt accumulation of 
$1.2 trillion over the next two years. I think the American people 
agree that these numbers do not reflect sound fiscal policy.
  First, this 5-year Republican budget as reported, would result in a 
deficit of $377.7 billion in FY 2005, with a promise to cut the deficit 
in half in five years to $235.2 billion in FY09--with no prospect of 
balancing over its life. It is also a short-sighted budget, one that 
does not take into account many costs, like fixing the AMT. If this 
were a traditional 10-year budget, the numbers would be different and 
the outlook even more bleak. The Republican and Bush five year budgets 
are very disingenuous, since ten-year numbers would show even further 
deficits, having to account for the retirement of many Baby Boomers 
starting in 2008. If they were 10 year budgets, they would reflect the 
CBO estimates, that over the next 10 years, their tax cuts will 
actually cost our country over $3 trillion.
  Second, the Republican budget includes a reconciliation directive to 
the Ways and Means Committee to approve $138 billion in tax cuts over 
five years--making nearly all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. 
We should not consider extending tax cuts, while we are considering the 
budget reconciliation legislation--especially when extending these tax 
cuts will not result in a better economy in the foreseeable future.
  Third, the Republican budget caps placed in the bill will ensure that 
the steep cuts in domestic discretionary spending, outside of homeland 
security, remain permanent. I should mention that this budget also cuts 
numerous discretionary domestic programs, most of which are in 
education. The sleight of hand in this budget, is that the budget caps 
will not be used to restore funding to these programs in the out years, 
but to pay for the tax cuts for those who don't need them. Also, any 
subsequent entitlement increases under the Republican budget one-sided 
pay-go rules, have to be offset in the current year by decreased 
spending in a domestic spending bill. The tax cuts, however, do not 
need to be offset. This sounds very unfair to me and leads me to just 
one conclusion. This budget seems, by design, to hurt those who need 
our help the most.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is inherently unbalanced. It cuts 
critical domestic spending by over $120 billion, while increasing 
defense spending by over $1 trillion. It cuts education, LIHEAP, WIC, 
child care, Medicaid, veterans' healthcare, and environmental 
protection, just to name a few. It jeopardizes Social Security by 
further extending tax cuts and it provides slipshod protection of our 
troops by not accounting for the current war efforts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It also jeopardizes teacher quality and training and 
ensures the ``No Child Left Behind'' Act, will be left behind by 
billions of dollars from its authorized funding level. How are students 
expected to meet the stringent accountability standards under the Act 
on a shoe string budget?
  In contrast, the Spratt alternative budget focuses national spending 
on priorities that benefit all Americans. It does this by funding key 
domestic priorities which address the needs of middle income and 
working families, while fully supporting the national defense and 
protection of our homeland. These priorities include education, health 
care, our veterans, homeland security, and an extension of middle-class 
tax cuts--all while achieving a balanced budget in 8 years.
  It would immediately repeal tax cuts for the upper income brackets, 
the top 1 percent of income earners, who own 33 percent of the nation's 
wealth--and extend middle/low income tax cuts to help the bottom 50 
percent, who account for just 3 percent of our nation's wealth.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democratic budget alternative is feasible, balanced 
and fiscally responsible--it will get our country on the road to 
recovery while funding meaningful national priorities for our children, 
for our seniors, for our veterans and for our communities. It reflects 
the guiding principle that as a Nation we must come together and share 
in the sacrifice that is required to strengthen our economy and put us 
on better fiscal footing.
  Mr. Chairman, in these difficult and troubling times, we have a 
tremendous responsibility as a Congress to protect and provide for the 
needs of all Americans. But I, and many of my colleagues, believe that 
the Republican budget plan callously throws this responsibility aside. 
The Republican-proposed $1.4 trillion tax cut is a reckless measure to 
pursue, especially as we face war in Iraq and a continued war on 
terror--to defend our homeland and hometowns.
  The Republicans and the President continue to claim unabashedly, that 
tax cuts will serve to stimulate our economy, but the evidence does not 
support this assertion. The `trickle-down' tax cuts of 20 years ago did 
not revitalize our economy, and similar tax cuts today will not fare 
better. In fact, the CBO estimates that the Republican budget will add 
over a trillion in deficits over the next ten years, after completely 
depleting the surplus of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. 
In the end, one can only conclude that the Republican budget balances 
itself on the backs of Americans who can least afford it.
  Lastly on tax cuts, I must point out that tax cuts of 3 years ago did 
not prevent the loss of over 3 million private sector jobs--a more 
drastic tax cut today, as proposed in the Republican budget, likewise 
will not eliminate the resulting almost 6 percent high unemployment 
rate. It is completely implausible to think that tax cuts--80 percent 
of which goes to the top 1 percent--for those earning over $250,000 or 
more, will revitalize and restore our economy. They cannot and will 
not. These tax cuts have shown themselves to be a failure and we should 
not continue with this disingenuous fiscal policy.
  Mr. Chairman we have many challenges facing us in this Congress and 
in our country. We are one year into a war that often and rightfully 
diverts attention away from important debates. I would be remiss if I 
did not salute our men and women in the military who are fighting to 
defend our country--I support them wholeheartedly and pray for their 
safe return home. I hope we can restore the deep cuts to veterans 
benefits and health plans found Republican budget before our troops 
return.
  In closing, the American people need to know that the Republican 
budget plan is an

[[Page 5323]]

obstacle that keeps us from meeting the human needs challenges of our 
Nation. The Spratt Democratic Budget alternative is a more fiscally 
sound, reality-based proposal--with priorities that reflect the needs 
of all Americans.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
balanced Democratic Budget Substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Spratt budget substitute 
and strong opposition to the underlying Republican budget resolution.
  Rhode Islanders are facing challenges on many fronts. Unfortunately, 
the budget proposed by House Resolutions does little to ease the burden 
of those currently facing education, health care, and housing 
obstacles. Worse yet, the Republicans want to continue to borrow more 
and more money from future generations to pay for their failed economic 
policies. Under the Republican budget, the obstacles we face today will 
only grow in the coming years.
  Working within the horrible fiscal confines that the country has been 
boxed into by the majority, the Spratt substitute manages to balance 
the budget in 8 years, cut taxes for all taxpayers, and provide 
realistic funding for education, veterans health care, Medicaid, 
infrastructure and homeland security, which were all shortchanged by 
the Republicans. The Spratt substitute has a better bottom line than 
the Republican budget every year, so there will be lower deficits, 
smaller interest payments, and a less national debt. In addition, the 
Spratt substitutes restores PAYGO rules to ensure that spending is not 
increased or revenue is not decreased without fully offsetting the new 
costs. Simply put, the Spratt substitute is better than the Republican 
plan in every way.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and the 
Armed Services Committee, I have been steadfast in my support for a 
strong national defense and a well-equipped Homeland Security 
infrastructure. Since September 11th, the government has worked daily 
to protect the American people from another attack. Unfortunately, this 
budget does little to provide for our men and women in uniform, or to 
bolster safety within our borders. The Spratt substitute fully funds 
our defense requirements and reserves money to ensure our troops in 
Iraq have the support needed. Veterans are not forgotten, and their 
health care programs are funded $1.3 billion above the Republican plan. 
In addition, the Spratt substitute contains more than $5 billion in 
additional homeland security funding for port security and first 
responders.
  The budget before us does little to strengthen our country or offer 
Americans an equal opportunity to succeed. These difficult times 
require shared sacrifice to get our country back on track. We are 
asking our service members and first responders to sacrifice as they 
protect us at home and abroad. We are asking our working families to 
sacrifice as they try to weather the difficult economy and the job. 
This budget gives millionaires a ``No Need to Sacrifice'' pass while 
paying for tax cuts with money borrowed from future generations.
  I believe in lower taxes, but I also believe in providing tax cuts 
for those who are in the greatest need. But under the Republican 
budget, those earning low to moderate incomes are passed over again in 
favor of benefits for the wealthy. One key point the majority continues 
to ignore is that they are increasing the ``debt tax.'' Currently, 
every man, woman, and child in America owes more than $1,100 in 
interest alone on the national debt. Under the Republican plan, this 
increases to nearly $1,750 per person by 2009. These interest payments 
do not provide security, education, or health care: they are a product 
of mismanagement of taxpayer funds.
  Deficit spending has stymied job growth is plaguing our economy. No 
Rhode Islander would write a check without sufficient funds to cash 
that check. Neither should the government.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Spratt budget 
substitute and opposing the underlying Republican plan.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks.
  I rise today in opposition to the Republican Budget Resolution and in 
support of the Democratic substitute.
   Mr. Chairman, I have one simple point or better yet one simple 
question to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Where is the money to assure the best possible education for our 
children? Clearly not in this budget.
  The Republican Budget:
  Represents the smallest increase in education spending in 9 years.
  It cuts $1.4 billion in critical education programs.
  It freezes Disabilities Education Act and Pell Grant leaving 
individuals billions of dollars short in funding.
  It drastically cuts funding for Perkins Loans.
  It cuts vocational education by 25 percent.
  The GOP budget provides $479 million more to education. Even if these 
funds were devoted entirely to No Child Left Behind, it would still 
leave the GOP budget almost $9 billion short of the amount promised.
  Gentlemen, we are dealing with our children here, our future. You 
talk about Leaving no child behind . . . well let me tell you: You 
haven't even picked them up.
  Unfortunately we have limited time allotted to discuss this proposal. 
Because I have only scratched the surface of the failure of a budget 
designed by the Republicans solely to give tax breaks to those that 
need it the least.
  I'm sorry but this is not the Democratic vision of America, Democrats 
do not try to balance the budget on the backs of children, veterans, 
the elderly or the uninsured.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican Budget and in support of the Spratt Substitute.
  The budget is a statement of our nation's priorities. Unfortunately, 
the Republican budget represents misplaced priorities and misguided 
policies that hurt America's working families. In contrast, the Spratt 
Democratic Substitute offers a fiscally responsible approach that cuts 
the budget deficit and invests in the American people and our economic 
growth.
  The Republican budget continues this Administration's dangerously 
reckless fiscal policies that have turned record budget surpluses into 
record budget deficits in just three years. The Republican budgets have 
turned a projected ten-year surplus of $5.6 trillion into a projected 
deficit of $2.9 trillion, a reversal of $8.5 trillion. The massive 
national debt these deficits produce will be a crushing burden on 
future generations and hampers economic growth.
  Republican economic policies have utterly failed America's working 
families. Under this current Administration, the economy has lost three 
million private sector jobs, the worst performance since the Hoover 
Administration. This Republican budget resolution proposes more of the 
same failed economic policies and shortchanges important investment 
priorities.
  Our first priority should be to invest more in education. As the 
former Superintendent of North Carolina's public schools, my top 
priority is to provide necessary funding for our schools. 
Unfortunately, this Administration continues to cut the President's own 
education reform initiative, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. This 
budget resolution cuts $8.8 billion from NCLB, and over the first three 
years of the new law, the Republicans are cutting NCLB by $26 billion.
  The Republican budget spends the entire $1.0 trillion Social Security 
surplus from 2005 to 2009, despite their repeated promises not to spend 
a dime of it. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan recently 
testified to Congress Social Security benefits will have to be cut to 
make the Republican tax cuts permanent as they are now proposing. I 
strongly oppose cutting Social Security.
  The Republican budget also provides less than is needed for veterans, 
fails to protect the environment, puts Medicaid and SCHIP at risk, cuts 
homeland security and underfunds key domestic priorities.
  In contrast, the Democratic plan balances the budget within eight 
years through realistic policy choices that protect funding for key 
services. The Spratt budget also has a better bottom line than the 
Republican budget every year, meaning a smaller national debt and fewer 
resources wasted paying interest on the national debt. Chronic 
Republican deficits crowd out private borrowing, run up interest rates, 
and slow economic growth. As a fiscal conservative, I have always 
supported balanced budgets and responsible fiscal management.
  The Spratt Substitute provides $2.1 billion more for education than 
the Republican budget for 2005 and $9.8 billion over the next five 
years. The Democratic budget also provides $3.7 billion in mandatory 
funding to make up the current shortfall in funding for Pell grants and 
additional funding to make college loans cheaper for students.
  The Spratt plan provides meaningful budget enforcement tools (PAYGO) 
to protect Social Security, provides middle class tax relief and 
invests in real job creation. The Democratic plan provides more for 
homeland security, veterans and the environment and protects public 
health.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the 
Republican budget resolution and for the Spratt Democratic Substitute.

[[Page 5324]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified, offered by the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 232, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 91]

                               AYES--194

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

                               NOES--232

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     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
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Abercrombie
     Ford
     Lucas (KY)
     McInnis
     Quinn
     Tanner
     Tauzin


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1724

  Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. OTTER and Ms. DUNN changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order for a period of final general debate 
on the concurrent resolution. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is going to go first, then myself, 
then the minority leader and then the Speaker, is I think how we are 
going to wrap up the debate. So I will allow the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina to begin the closing debate.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would allow me to do 
something he did earlier, and that is acknowledge the indefatigable 
work that our staff did. Tom Kahn, my chief of staff, Joe Minarik, and 
the staff members in back of the aisle, Sarah Abernathy, Arthur Burris, 
Linda Bywaters, Dan Ezrow, Jennifer Friedman, Jason Lumia, Sheila 
McDowell, Diana Meredith, Kimberly Overbeek, Scott Russell, Andy 
Smullian, Lisa Venus, Andrea Weathers, Jason Venner and Allison 
Colflesh, they have worked extremely hard over the last several weeks 
to bring this to fruition, and I am grateful for all of their support. 
By the same token, I know the chairman feels the same way about his 
staff.
  Mr. NUSSLE. If the gentleman would permit me, I would say the same 
about the majority staff and all of our staff, and the members of our 
floor staff that are here that have endured the discussion over the 
last number of days. I hope they got their ``millions'' and 
``billions'' all in the right places. We appreciate their help as we 
moved through this debate
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate for which I am grateful 
because the gravity of this problem calls for it.
  I wish all our effort could have been devoted to the search for 
common ground for a better solution; but I am afraid, as we bring it to 
a close, we find ourselves diverging more than converging. That is 
unfortunate, because the longer we put off the resolution of this 
problem, the more difficult it is going to become.
  Here is the situation in a nutshell: the government will run a 
deficit this year of $521 billion. The President and our Republican 
colleagues claim that their budget will cut that deficit in half over 
the next 5 years; but, pardon me, I doubt that.
  For one thing, on the spending side, they leave out any supplemental 
funding beyond 2005 for Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish they were right 
about that, but I doubt it. On the revenue side, they leave out any fix 
for the Alternative Minimum Tax, even though the Treasury Department 
tells us it will

[[Page 5325]]

soon affect 30 million tax filers. So it is unrealistic to project 
revenues without it.
  Worse still, after 2009, the Republican budget quits; and that is 
when it really gets tough. That is when I am afraid the budget gets 
worse. They leave us expecting that the budget is linear and that over 
time the deficit will be reduced, the half that is supposedly left in, 
but I do not think it will work out.
  Let me just show you a few charts. At the expense of maybe showing 
you some things you have already seen, the first chart is a roller 
coaster. What happened when Bill Clinton came to office, President 
Clinton came to office with a $290 billion deficit. He put it in 
surplus by the year 2000 by $236 billion. It took really three budget 
agreements to bring it to resolution like that. Then in the last 4 
years, you see this precipitous decline.
  Now, I know that recession, terrorists, and war have all taken their 
toll on the economy and the budget; but there were conscious, 
deliberate choices made that caused this budget to skyrocket down.
  There in another graphic portrayal is what happened. This is the 
Clinton administration building up surpluses, moving from deficit to 
surplus. Every year the bottom line of the budget is better. And here 
is the Bush administration, every year it gets worse and worse.
  This chart shows on the far left side where we are today, looking at 
a deficit this year of $521 billion, a swing in the budget over the 
last 4 years of $760 billion, a phenomenal reversal of fiscal 
discipline.
  Despite the claims the President makes that he will cut this in half, 
when we make what we regard as basic, realistic, politically inevitable 
adjustments to his budget, this is where you end up in 2014, not with a 
diminished deficit, but about where we started out, $502 billion as 
opposed to $521 billion. It treads water, at best.

                              {time}  1730

  The problem does not go away. It does not go away with growth; it 
does not go away with anything but an effort to bring it to healing.
  Here is part of the problem. We have heard the Republicans say here 
that tax cuts have not done all of that. That is true. Part of the 
problem is that these surpluses were overestimated by 50 percent to 
start with. Now, when we look at the size of their tax cuts, the wedge 
taken out of the tax cuts, by the tax cuts out of the remaining 
surplus, that is about 50 to 55 percent. It is about half the problem 
that we are looking at today.
  Here is another aspect of the problem right here. The tax cut agenda 
is $3.77 trillion over the next 10 years. This is pending, enacted tax 
cuts already. On top of that, we are increasing defense over the same 
period of time by about $1.3 trillion over inflation.
  That is why, as this chart right here shows, the big hump is the cost 
of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we extend it, taper it off, and it 
concludes up here, we will add about $1.5 trillion over and above 
inflation to defense between 2002 and 2011, more than we anticipated 
spending in current services.
  I am not saying it is not needed. What I am saying is, when the 
Republicans say we have to bring spending to heel, we have to bring 
spending under control, this is where it is occurring, as this next 
graph shows. As these three bar graphs show, over the last 4 fiscal 
years, 90 to 95 percent of the increase in spending over and above 
current services has occurred in these accounts, and they are not 
likely to be reined in.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not coming to grips with the budget today in 
this resolution. Unfortunately, the resolution avoids bold strokes and 
it will take bold strokes, believe me, to untie this Gordian knot.
  If we want to strike a bold stroke, if we want to do something about 
the deficit, if we want to do something about saving and making solvent 
Social Security, vote against this budget resolution. That is the 
single best thing we can do for deficit reduction and for putting our 
country back on fiscal track. Vote against it, send us back to the 
drawing board. Let us come to the House with something worthy of 
passage, something that will put us back on a path to a balanced 
budget. This resolution will not do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we need a budget blueprint in order to build for the 
future. We cannot have the carpenters show up without a blueprint. A 
mess would ensue, as one might imagine. We cannot have the 
subcontractors do their work. We cannot have any of the folks who need 
to construct the house show up for work without a blueprint, and that 
is what a budget provides. It provides the framework so that all of the 
rest of the fine-tuning and detail work can be accomplished.
  Even before the end of last year, we knew what priorities were going 
to have to be part of this budget; they were becoming very clear. 
Spending had to be kept under control, there was no question. When we 
talked to colleagues, when we talked to constituents, no matter where 
we went, controlling spending had to be a hallmark of whatever budget 
plan came together.
  We heard, too, that growth of our economy was vital to getting our 
country back on its feet. So we came together with all of the 
extraordinary circumstances that our country has been dealt over the 
last number of years and we knew we had to go to work.
  We had a growth deficit in our economy, and we dealt with it by 
reducing taxes and a progrowth policy which has given us 6 months. The 
last 6 months were the fastest growing 6 months in over 20 years, 
because tax relief is working, Americans are being put back into 
working positions. They are spending their money much more wisely than 
the government can for them, and America is growing again.
  We also learned painfully about the defense deficit, about the 
homeland security deficit in our country, and we went about the work to 
make sure that America was protected, and we did it most often in a 
bipartisan way, but most often led by Republicans to ensure that 
America was strong once again.
  We also had a Medicare deficit, because a program that was invented 
in the 1960s was not keeping up with the times. Americans were not 
receiving drug benefits or simple prevention systems under health care 
programs that were invented to help them. So we changed that Medicare 
program to provide them the first-ever prescription drug benefit, put 
in as part of our blueprint that we have here today. So that we filled 
in that gap, that Medicare deficit.
  As a result of much of that work, yes, we have a Federal budget 
deficit that we also have to go to work on. But we have the ability to 
accomplish deficit control.
  My friends on the other side have learned the words to the song of 
fiscal responsibility, but they do not know the music. The music is 
controlling spending. That is what we have to do. The only thing that 
we pay for in Washington is spending. What is paid for when we pay for 
taxes is paid for out of the pockets of Americans, out of their hard-
earned money that they earn out of small businesses, out of farmers, 
out of ranchers.
  When we talk about paying for tax cuts, the only people who pay for 
taxes in this country are Americans, and in order to get our budget 
deficit under control, the way we control it is by growing the economy 
and controlling spending.
  Spending has been out of control, and we can see from this chart that 
recent spending every year in the last 3 years has grown by 6 percent. 
We are asking that we begin to hold the line. We are not saying cut. We 
are not saying eliminate. We are saying hold the line.
  Yes, the decisions will be difficult, there is no question. We have 
carved out items that are important such as increases in veterans' 
spending, 1.2. We allow for an increase, even over what the President 
requested for veterans, of $1.2 billion.
  We have increases in education. We have increases in here for 
homeland security and for national defense, and we

[[Page 5326]]

ask that we hold the line in other accounts in order to get Federal 
spending under control.
  Mr. Chairman, the three hallmarks of our budget are strength, growth, 
and opportunity. First, because if America is not strong, America is 
not free, and we have got to protect our country; otherwise, the rest 
of this discussion on the budget is just a bunch of numbers that do not 
make any difference.
  Second, America has got to continue to grow, because to remain the 
most prosperous superpower Nation, America's economy has to be able to 
continue the growth that we have seen and the job creation that we have 
enjoyed.
  But we also know that our greatness comes from the unlimited 
opportunities that America's freedom provides, which is why opportunity 
is the third hallmark of our budget.
  This is all done within a framework which is fiscally responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe that we have a framework to move our country 
forward to provide strength, growth, and opportunity, and I ask my 
colleagues today to support it so we can get our country back on a 
fiscally responsible path.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding me this time and for his tremendous leadership in 
presenting to this House of Representatives, to this Congress, a budget 
that is values-based and that is fiscally sound. I join my colleague in 
commending the members of his committee and his staff for helping to 
put together this very, very important proposal to this House.
  I also want to thank the members of the Black Caucus and Progressive 
Caucus for their very, very smart work that they did to bring a values-
based budget to the floor, and the members of the Blue Dog Caucus for 
what they have done. Their tremendous leadership on fiscal soundness is 
something that is important to this Congress, important to our caucus, 
and important to our country. Thank you to the Blue Dogs for infusing 
fiscal soundness back into the Congress of the United States. It seems 
to be a priority of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who 
had been known as deficit hawks, but have become endangered species 
when it comes to that fact.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget that we are talking about today should be a 
statement of our national values. Every year we say this on the floor. 
It should be a statement of our coming together to build a budget, a 
blueprint for the future on how we prepare a better future for our 
children by way of their education and access to health care, how it 
grows the economy to create jobs, how it protects our environment and, 
of course, provides for our national defense. And, today, that includes 
homeland security. But for the fourth time in 4 years, the Republicans 
in Congress and President Bush, indeed, have sought to pass a budget 
that is nothing less than an assault on our national values.
  The American people expect and deserve, and the Democrats have 
proposed, a budget that reflects the urgent priorities of Americans' 
everyday needs. Good jobs, better access to health care, the best 
possible education for their children, a safe and clean environment, 
and a secure America. Instead, because of distorted Republican 
priorities and their reckless economic policies, we are considering a 
Republican budget here today that will have serious consequences for 
the American people. Instead of a blueprint of positive initiatives for 
the future, it is a blueprint for disaster.
  The Republican economic record of the past 3 years is as shameful as 
it is clear. In 3 years, Republican economic policies have lost nearly 
3 million jobs and added more than $3 trillion to the national debt. 
The gentleman from South Carolina has very eloquently and in a very 
detailed way talked about what has happened from surplus in the Clinton 
years to deficit in the Bush years. Unbelievably, this budget continues 
that misguided course. It does not grow the economy.
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget talked 
about growth. It does not grow the economy to create jobs here at home 
or, in fact, to stop jobs from going overseas. It is a historic budget 
in that it has the largest budget deficit in history, $521 billion in 
this year alone. It fails to put our fiscal house in order by failing 
to reach balance.
  And what is the impact of this budget deficit, in addition to 
mortgaging our children's future?
  The National Association for Business Economics said that the main 
threat to the economy, the main threats to the economy are the soaring 
budget deficits and the sluggish job market, and the UCLA Andersen 
Forecast said job growth will not match labor force growth this year 
because new hiring will be constrained, because of weaker consumer 
spending and bulging government deficits. This lack of job growth and 
this deficit are related. Instead of being a statement of our values, 
as I have said before, this Republican budget is reckless and the 
consequences are severe.
  But you be the judge.
  On education, do you consider it a statement of your values to give 
tax cuts to people making over $1 million a year and cutting over $9 
billion from No Child Left Behind? Is that a statement of our values in 
this Congress?
  On health care, this budget takes away more than $1 billion from 
States' Children's Health Insurance Programs, from the SCHIP program 
over $1 billion, and cuts $2.2 billion from Medicare. Is it a statement 
of our values to give tax cuts, bigger tax cuts to people making over 
$1 million a year and increasing the number of uninsured in America 
with these cuts to more than 1.6 million in this year alone? I do not 
think so.
  Is it a statement of your values to leave our veterans behind? And 
the military, the promises to leave no soldier behind on the 
battlefield, and when they come home we just leave our veterans behind?

                              {time}  1745

  So this is not enough to talk with sacrifice and valor and patriotism 
of our military and our veterans. We must not fail to meet their needs. 
So is it a statement of your values to give tax cuts to people making 
over $1 million a year and cutting $1.6 billion from veterans services, 
as this budget does?
  The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget does not do 
that. It rearranges the spending on defense in the budget to meet the 
needs of the veterans and the needs of their survivors. I thank the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his values-based budget.
  On homeland security, I was absolutely, and I am rarely surprised, 
rarely surprised around here, but it was really astonishing to hear the 
distinguished chairman talking about the homeland security funding in 
this budget. This budget cuts $850 million from the already meager 
proposal that President Bush made in his budget. It cuts President 
Bush's budget on homeland security. Is that a statement of our values?
  I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for adding $5 
billion over and above what the President had in his budget to reverse 
some of the cuts in police and fire funding that we need to protect our 
homeland.
  Mr. Chairman, some people were talking about music and words, and we 
have the words and they have the music and all the rest. There is a 
song, ``America The Beautiful,'' and there is a sentence that I find 
haunting and inspiring as a Member of Congress. It says, ``O beautiful 
for patriots' dreams that sees beyond the years.''
  That is what our responsibility is here. We are supposed to be here 
to see beyond the years, to prepare a better future for our children; 
and, indeed, it is our patriotic duty to have a budget that is balanced 
and not again mortgaging their future, indebting them for generations 
to come. And it is our patriotic duty to have a budget that reflects 
our values, that we educate our children; indeed, nothing does more to 
grow the economy than that. It is our

[[Page 5327]]

patriotic duty to provide for our children, their education, their 
health care, the economic security of their families, including the 
pension security of their grandparents, a safe environment for them to 
live and a secure America. But this budget does not do that. It is not 
beautiful for patriots' dreams.
  The gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget is.
  Led by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), House 
Democrats offered a budget today that spoke to the American people's 
aspirations for good jobs, better access to health care, the best 
possible education for our children. The gentleman from South 
Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) budget rose to meet the challenge of homeland 
security, to really meet that challenge. And the Spratt budget would 
not add one penny to the deficit. It is fiscally sound and patriotic.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget that the Republicans have before us does not 
have a values base. It does not have fiscal soundness, and it should 
not have your support.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the 
House.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Nussle 
budget and in opposition to the various tax and spend alternatives that 
we have heard from the other side of the aisle.
  The Nussle budget is the best alternative if you want to keep the 
economy growing, if you want to keep the country secure, and if you 
want to keep spending under control. If you want to keep the government 
growing, if you want to keep the tax burden rising, if you want to keep 
jobs flowing overseas, and if you want to make America less secure, you 
can find a Democratic budget alternative that is more to your liking. 
But, once again, as we do every year, we have two radically different 
visions for the future of America presented in the budget debate.
  The budget is important because it is in the budget that we make the 
choices in how we choose to govern in this country. The Nussle budget 
calls for responsible government. And I guess when you talk about 
responsible, maybe we do talk about values and we talk about values of 
not spending beyond our means, and we talk about values of protecting 
our children's future. It says that we should not raise taxes just as 
the economy is finally getting its footing. It fully funds the war on 
terror and our homeland defense; and, incidentally, it raises homeland 
defense, not cuts homeland defense, 9.5 percent, so that our troops 
have the equipment and the training and the pay and the ammunition and 
the support of this Congress to keep this Nation secure.
  The 9/11 Commission is now examining what happened in the days 
leading up to the worst attacks against America in our Nation's 
history. And one inescapable conclusion is that we did not invest 
enough money in our intelligence community in the late 1990s so that 
they could do the job to protect America.
  The leaders of the Democrat minority voted consistently to cut 
intelligence spending throughout the 1990s as they voted to slash 
defense spending. And that anti-defense, anti-intelligence philosophy 
lives on in one of the Democratic alternatives that we have before us 
today. We will not make that mistake again. We should do everything 
within our power to make certain that what happened on September 11, 
2001, never happens in this country again.
  The Nussle budget calls for spending restraints in the rest of the 
budget. I think that is appropriate, and some people may even call that 
a value. We no longer live in the era of surpluses because of the war, 
because of terrorism, because of the downturn in the economy; and we do 
have a big deficit. We need to spend less money and this budget spends 
less money.
  We disagree with our Democratic colleagues who by tradition want to 
spend more money here in Washington and raise taxes to do it. And when 
we say we want to cut waste, fraud and abuse, they say that we are 
gutting the programs that they care about the most. The Democrats do 
not believe that government wastes any money or that the government can 
become any more efficient or that higher productivity for government 
employees is a good thing.
  They will defend the bureaucracy with every rhetorical weapon in 
their arsenal. We challenge the bureaucracy to do more with less. We 
ask them to weed out waste and fraud and abuse.
  We believe that a bloated Federal Government is bad for the economy, 
bad for the taxpayers, and bad for the fiscal future of this Nation.
  Our Democratic friends want you to believe that their tax increases 
will hit the richest Americans. You heard it 15 times in the last 
speech. Why should we not tax the million-dollar earners? Well, I will 
tell you who they are. The million-dollar earners are the small 
business owners, they are the entrepreneurs, they are the job creators, 
and they hit the job seekers the hardest.
  When you go to my district in the Fox Valley of Illinois, it is the 
small business people, it is the small entrepreneurs that are creating 
jobs in this country. They are doing it today. We do not want to 
handcuff them.
  The Democrats like to talk about how they help the jobless, but their 
budget policies will keep the jobless from getting jobs. Higher taxes 
kill jobs. In fact, 95 percent of the entrepreneurs who file as 
Subchapter S Corporations or partnerships will be hit by the Democrats' 
taxes, while 58 percent of small business owners would also be hit. 
These higher taxes would make it harder to hire that extra worker or 
expand that business to keep competitive with the Chinese or the 
Europeans.
  In this economic environment, the last thing we need is a policy that 
kills jobs.
  This is a familiar debate. The Nussle budget promotes a stronger 
defense, a stronger economy and a smaller and smarter government. The 
various Democratic alternatives promote bigger government, a bigger tax 
burden for America's job creators, and a bigger fiscal mess down the 
road.
  In this debate we have heard it time and time again, it is not really 
a debate of policy. It is really a debate of philosophy. It is a debate 
that asks the question, can government spend people's money better and 
can government make better decisions for our children and ourselves or 
can people spend their money better and can people make better 
decisions for themselves?
  Vote for the Nussle budget and vote to keep America strong and 
secure.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today against the Republican 
budget and for the Democratic and CBC alternative budgets.
  The members on the other side of the aisle describe their budget as 
one that ``recognizes the fundamental obligations of the Federal 
Government.'' It does no such thing. In fact, it is nothing short of a 
political document that turns a blind eye to our obligations.
  The House Republican budget is indefensible. House Republicans 
followed the lead of President Bush and passed a budget that goes after 
the poor, the homeless, and the elderly. Republicans value more tax 
cuts for the rich over meeting the needs of senior citizens, working 
families, the unemployed and the majority of Americans. Medicaid and 
Section 8 vouchers are slashed so they can pay for missile defense, 
subsidies to Halliburton and tax cuts for the wealthy.
  The Republican budget cuts and underfunds programs that have been 
proven to strengthen our country and provide opportunities for the 
future. The so-called ``education President's'' own No Child Left 
Behind is underfunded by $8.8 billion. While college costs have 
skyrocketed, the GOP budget keeps the Pell Grant maximum at the same 
level it was three years ago. There is no money for the Family 
Opportunity Act, which would provide health insurance for disabled 
children. It tells my committee, Energy and Commerce, to make $2.2 
billion in Medicaid cuts over the next five years, jeopardizing health 
and long term care for 52 million Americans.
  Section 8, low-income heating assistance of LIHEAP, child care 
assistance--programs that help people pay the bills and keep roofs over 
their head in tough times like these--are cut by $3.7 billion. We could 
see 250,000 people lose affordable housing this year under the GOP 
budget. Veterans' health care is underfunded again, this time by $1.3 
billion below

[[Page 5328]]

what the Republican Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
recommended. Over the next five years, the Republican budget will cut 
these and other domestic programs by $36.9 billion. At a time when so 
many families are worried about jobs, health care, and education, this 
budget puts their future on the chopping block.
  Parents cannot afford to send their children to college. Seniors 
cannot afford their housing, heating bills or medicine. Veterans have 
to wait for months to see a physician at the VA. Teachers still have to 
buy their own school supplies. Democrats offered a clear alternative to 
the destructive plan Republicans pushed through Congress. We will 
continue to fight for a fair budget that will fund America's true 
priorities.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the House-passed Fiscal Year 
2005 Budget Resolution marks another step forward in our efforts to 
increase the level of funding reserved for America's brave veterans. 
The budget will increase VA funding by $9.3 billion over last year, 
which was preceded by an increase of $9.1 billion for the previous two 
years. In addition, the budget excludes new increases in prescription 
drug copayments and VA enrollment fees. Even so, I would have liked to 
have seen more done for our growing veterans population, and I will do 
all I can in the coming months to do just that.
  As you know, I signed a letter last week requesting the level of 
funding for veterans be increased to match that of the Senate-passed 
budget. I have now received a letter from VA Secretary Anthony Principi 
certifying that the House budget plan provides sufficient funds for the 
VA to continue providing high quality care in the coming fiscal year. 
Nonetheless, I pledge to work with the House-Senate conferees to 
increase the final funding level for veterans in the budget, and will 
push my colleagues on the appropriations committee to provide 
additional increases for our nation's retired servicemen and women.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, the President and majority party in Congress 
have presented budgets that continue down the path of fiscal 
recklessness and misplaced priorities. Their plan continues to fail 
working families, continues to fail seniors, continues to fail 
veterans, and continues to fail children by expanding already record 
deficits that will hamper economic growth and burden future 
generations.
  Perhaps most disturbing is that the majority has no plan to return 
the federal government's books to balance. While they claim that their 
budget plan will cut in half the current record deficits that their 
economic policies helped create, realistic projections, including pages 
in the President's own budget. show deficits as far as the eye can see 
under their plan.
  Their plan continues the downward fiscal spiral of our government at 
exactly the wrong moment in our nation's history when we have 80 
million baby boomers rapidly approaching retirement age and starting to 
enter the Social Security and Medicare systems. Instead of the 
irresponsible budget before us, we should be trying to practice fiscal 
discipline to get the nation on sound fiscal footing in anticipation of 
that demographic time bomb going off and protect the monies in the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  This requires making tough choices on spending and revenue, and it 
requires us to move away from the status quo toward a new plan that 
helps working families, meets the security needs of our country, 
protects important programs here at home, and finds balance within a 
specified time frame.
  The alternative budget proposal offered by Mr. Spratt meets this 
challenge and sets a new course toward fiscal sanity. It includes more 
funding for programs important to people in western Wisconsin such as 
education, veterans' health care, environmental protection, and first 
responders. It fully funds our national defense, and provides necessary 
tax relief for working families. By reducing a portion of the 
individual tax cuts for those making over $500,000 yearly income, the 
Spratt alternative provides working families relief from the marriage 
penalty tax and extends the child tax credit.
  In addition, the Democratic alternative returns the federal budget to 
balance in eight years--something the Republican budget never does. It 
supports important budget enforcement measures that were present in the 
1990's and kept government on track to record surpluses. The Republican 
leadership has continually refused to reinstate these important, common 
sense enforcement tools that simply require offsets for spending and 
revenue changes in law that would otherwise increase the budget 
deficit. These so-called ``pay-as-you-go'' provisions require 
government to pay its bills and stop the fiscal bleeding.
  Budgets are all about priorities. The alternative budget proposal I 
support makes education a priority by providing $51.4 billion more than 
the President's budget over 10 years, helping local school districts 
meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind and making college more 
affordable for all students. It makes veterans health care a priority 
by providing $6.6 billion more than the majority over five years, 
meeting the request of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and veterans' 
organizations. And it makes job creation and worker training a priority 
while proving tax relief for working families.
  Let us pass a sensible, fiscally responsible budget that protects 
important American values so that years from now, we can look back and 
say, yes, we had to make some tough decisions, but they were the right 
decisions under the right circumstances, and American families are the 
primary beneficiaries as a consequence. I urge my colleagues' support 
of the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. JIM DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, our debate this afternoon is 
in part over our disagreement about the best way to address the ever 
growing debt and now record deficit. Despite the many differences 
enumerated this afternoon there are certain truths which must direct 
our decisions:
  The Federal debt now tops over 7 trillion dollars. This amounts to 
over $24,000 worth of debt per U.S. resident. That's an awesome burden 
to place on the backs of our children.
  This year, U.S. taxpayers will waste $156 billion on interest 
payments on the federal debt--money that should have helped support our 
troops in the field, students in the classroom and seniors relying on 
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And as this deficit spirals out 
of control, our government's excessive borrowing will deal a blow to 
our economy by forcing up interest rates for small businesses, 
homebuyers and students who rely on loans.
  Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has highlighted the 
risks of sustained deficits saying, ``History suggests that an 
abandonment of fiscal discipline will eventually push up interest 
rates, crowd out capital spending, lower productivity growth, and force 
harder choices upon us in the future.''
  The U.S. federal deficit is now among the highest in the 
industrialized world, and our debt level is fast approaching those of 
other major industrial countries. With the federal debt now close to 40 
percent of the Gross Domestic Product, deficits will likely put 
pressure on the U.S. dollar.
  As a member of the New Democrat Coalition I have supported a fiscally 
responsible deficit reduction plan to balance the budget in 10 years, 
suspend recent tax cuts for the top two tiers of earners, eliminate 
corporate tax loopholes, prioritize spending and revive budget 
enforcement mechanisms, such as the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) provisions 
which Senate Democrats and Republicans passed to force the government 
to live within its means.
  The Senate plan sent alarms through this chamber last week because 
the Senate Budget Resolution includes genuine Pay-As-You-Go provisions 
that can bring fiscal responsibility to the budget. The House Budget 
Committee's version betrays the budgetary spirit of Pay-As-You-Go 
because it enforces budgetary constraints on entitlement programs but 
not tax cuts. Tell me Mr. Chairman how this unbalanced approach to the 
budget will eventually lead to a balanced budget.
  The President visited my district a few weeks ago and during a speech 
about the economy never once did he mention the $7 trillion dollar debt 
or the record deficit this country now faces. Never once did he mention 
the potential for harm and devastation that rising interest rates pose 
for small businesses and exporters in my district. And not once did he 
mention any one of the 2.6 million jobs lost throughout the country 
since 2000. We cannot continue to ignore the implications of our fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  By failing to mention these concerns, the President has forgone all 
responsibility for addressing them. So in closing, I urge my colleagues 
to take up the responsibility thrown off by our leadership. Defeat the 
Republican House Budget Resolution because it fails to implement 
meaningful budgetary mechanisms that will bring this budget into 
balance.
   Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, the House Republicans should be ashamed 
for once again producing a budget that assaults the health needs of our 
most vulnerable citizens. In their annual attempt to slash needed 
programs and funding the end result is clear--the safety net for our 
Nation's health care will deteriorate and people will surely suffer.
  With the economy in shambles and job opportunities plummeting, 
American families are struggling to stay afloat right now. I can not 
stand by and allow our Congress to abandon our Nation's families' need 
for assistance with basic health care. We already are in a crisis

[[Page 5329]]

situation with over 43.6 million people uninsured nationwide. In my 
home State of Texas, over 26 percent of our citizens, nearly 5 million 
people are without health care.
  The House Republican budget decimates Medicaid and the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program SCHIP. It requires a $2.2 billion 
cut in Medicaid funding, which will compromise the well being of over 
500 million children, their parents, seniors, and disabled individuals. 
This comes at a time when States are already in fiscal crisis, 
resulting in nearly every State cutting their own Medicaid program by 
slashing eligibility, cutting benefits, raising copayments and reducing 
provider payments. Republicans have also tried to quietly allow $1 
billion in SCHIP funding to expire on September 30, despite the 
critical need to allocate that money towards its intended purpose of 
providing heath care to needy children.
  Prior Federal and State cuts to Medicaid and SCHIP have already 
caused irreparable harm to families in Texas. Since SCHIP cuts in Texas 
took place last September 1, enrollment for kids has dropped from over 
507,000 children to 399,000. For those children fortunate to retain 
some health coverage, they have had to endure the loss of all dental, 
vision, and hospice benefits. How can this be considered acceptable? 
How can our Federal legislators stand by and recommend cuts that will 
compound this problem? It is a travesty that Republicans believe it is 
OK to harm children under the guise of fiscal discipline.
  Children aren't the only citizens whose healthcare is sacrificed 
under the Republican budget though--our Nation's veterans are also 
dishonored with these cuts to their earned benefits. Every major 
veterans service organization, including the American Legion, Disabled 
American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Paralyzed Veterans 
of America has decried the now chronic under funding of their health 
care, stating the Republican Budget is an insult tot heir military 
service, and the health problems often caused by this service. Veterans 
need our support now--to offer a budget that doesn't even keep pace 
with inflation is illogical.
  We came to Congress with a commitment to represent the basic needs of 
American families. Now is the time to exercise fiscal discipline in a 
common sense way--by rejecting tax cuts for wealthy corporations in 
favor of sustaining and improving the health care of Americans in need. 
It is simply a question of priorities--a question of choices. The 
Democrats' budget answers this call from veterans, seniors and 
children. The Republican budget doesn't. I know which budget my 
constituents in East Texas want me to vote for. It is a clear choice--
it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the budget process in the House of 
Representatives is a casualty of the increasingly extreme partisanship 
of the Republican leadership and their obsession with reducing taxes 
for those who need it the least. All the deep concern about deficit 
spending that formerly influenced Republican policy making is of a 
previous generation.
  We now have the specter of the Republican budget causing another $1.3 
trillion in national debt, while at the same time spending the entire 
$1 trillion Social Security surplus, and cutting critical education, 
environment, and veterans' programs.
  The good news is that not even the Republican leadership will take 
their budget resolution seriously. They will not follow this blueprint.
  The bad news is that Republicans in Congress will combine the worst 
of both worlds, grudgingly increasing the spending for some critical 
programs, while at the same time continuing to pursue a reckless plan 
of tax cuts that ignores the greatest needs of middle-class families. 
The Alternative Minimum Tax, under the Republican plan, will tax tens 
of millions of American families, penalizing them hundreds of billions 
of dollars. For the Republicans, it is more important to give the 
richest few Americans more tax cuts than rescue millions of middle 
class families from the Alternative Minimum Tax.
  This plan means we will have to fight harder to meet the needs of our 
veterans and they will not be treated as generously as they would have 
been treated under the Democratic Budget alternative.
  It is my hope that with a presidential election looming and activism 
from groups like the coalition of veterans who have denounced the 
Republican budget proposal, we can return fiscal sanity to Washington.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this 
resolution.
  For 3 years, the administration and the Republican leadership have 
insisted on speeding ahead with misguided fiscal and economic policies. 
Ignoring all warning lights, they have taken us where we are today--
with an economy in the ditch and a budget deep in deficit.
  And, despite their claims to the contrary, when you look at the full 
picture you can see that this budget resolution offers only more of the 
same.
  For example, while they claim that they are putting the budget on 
track to cut the deficit in half, that claim is based on the fact that 
this budget covers only 5 years instead of the usual 10 years. When we 
broaden the picture to cover the full decade, we see that the deficit 
would be increasing again, meaning that we would be adding more and 
more debt that would have to be repaid--with interest--by our children 
and grandchildren. This is not a policy that deserves our support.
  We should be changing course, not persisting in error. That is why I 
supported the Spratt substitute, and why I also voted for the Blue Dog 
substitute. Neither was perfect--and in particular I thought the Blue 
Dog substitute would have not allowed for adequate investments in 
science and research or for environmental protection--but each was 
preferable to the Republican budget now before us.
  In particular, the Democratic alternative proposed by Representative 
Spratt would have fully protected Social Security while putting us on 
the road to balance the budget in 2012, while running up a public-debt 
burden that would be a full $34 billion less than the Republican budget 
in the next 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this resolution will pass, because our 
Republican colleagues have received their marching orders from the 
White House, and are in moving in lockstep to endorse the Bush 
administration's insistence that its economic and fiscal policies must 
continue without change. I admire their discipline, but I am convinced 
their judgment is faulty. I do not share their view, and I cannot 
follow them as they take us further into the swamp.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the 
Republican budget because it cuts funding for the Violence Against 
Women Programs.
  This funding supports most of the programs created by the Violence 
Against Women Act of 1994. The programs impact the lives of women and 
children by bolstering prosecution of domestic violence, sexual 
assault, increasing services for victims by funding shelters and 
increasing resources for law enforcement personnel. The President's 
budget proposes to reduce these programs to $362 million, a cut of $22 
million.
  Since the Violence Against Women Act was implemented, there has been 
a 25 percent decrease in violence against women. This 25 percent 
decrease demonstrates the effectiveness of the policing and 
prosecutions that these programs fund.
  Without full funding, thousands of women and children will not be 
able to access the services they need to escape from domestic violence. 
We need full funding for these programs to support this vulnerable 
section of our population.
  Violence against women is a global epidemic. It is not a woman's 
issue and it is not a ``private'' issue. We need to restore the $22 
million to the Violence Against Women Programs to show the women, 
children and families across the country that we are committed to 
creating a safer and more peaceful world for them.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it was just over a year ago that House 
Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle said, ``I don't like deficits, I 
don't want deficits, and I won't pretend deficits don't matter.'' Yet, 
the budget we're considering today, which he drafted along with the 
House Republican leadership, would make federal budget deficits worse, 
not better. Relative to current law, the Republican resolution will 
increase the deficit by $247 billion over the next 5 years and $1.6 
trillion over the next 10 years.
  The Republicans claim their budget will cut the deficit in half by 
2009. That claim is only accurate if you ignore the fact that they use 
every penny of the surplus Social Security revenue to mask the true 
size of the deficit. Two years ago Chairman Nussle said, ``I don't know 
how many times we have to say it: We are not going to spend the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds.'' Apparently, he's suffering from 
amnesia because the reality this year is that the Republican party is 
proposing to do exactly that, every single penny. If you don't count 
the Social Security money the Republicans are proposing to borrow, the 
deficit this year will be $550 billion and will be $471 billion in 
2009, which is not exactly cutting the deficit in half.
  Under the Republican plan, the debt held by the public, which 
excludes Social Security, will rise from $4.4 trillion today to $5.9 
trillion by 2009. The total federal debt will rise from $7.4 trillion 
today to $10.5 trillion in 2009. The ``debt tax'' a family of four owes 
on this debt will rise from $4,400 this year to $7,000 by

[[Page 5330]]

2009. Interest payments on the debt will rise from $154 billion today 
to $296 billion by 2009, rising from approximately 7 percent of the 
total federal budget to 11 percent.
  This debt load is clearly not sustainable. It unfairly burdens our 
children, grandchildren and their children with a debt they did not 
accumulate. And, it puts our country more and more in hock to foreign 
investors. The top two owners of U.S. government debt are Japan and 
China. I do not believe it is in the interests of our country to 
continue to run large budget deficits financed by China or Japan for 
that matter.
  You might think that in the face of these deficits, the House 
Republican leadership would make a serious attempt to restore some 
semblance of sanity to the federal budget. You would be wrong. But, 
please don't think they are in denial about the scope of the problem. 
They know exactly what they're doing. The debt escalation is a 
conscious--though disingenuous--policy the Republican party is pursuing 
in order to force drastic cuts in programs they don't like, but that 
the American people support.
  The House Republicans are willfully digging the budget hole deeper--
and are putting the financial stability of our country at risk--by 
providing $153 billion in tax cuts through 2009, including maintaining 
the repeal of the estate tax and reductions in capital gains and 
dividend taxes, which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans, 
those who make more than $300,000 a year. Over 10 years, the cost of 
the tax cuts in the Republican budget will cost $1.2 trillion.
  Now, my colleagues on other side of the aisle will protest that it is 
spending, not tax cuts, that have driven the sudden appearance of 
record budget deficits. While their rigid ideology may cause them to 
believe that, it happens not to be true. Republicans have repeatedly 
refused to acknowledge the obvious role tax cuts have played in the $9 
trillion reversal in the 10-year budget projections since Bush took 
office.
  According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, tax cuts 
are responsible for 36 percent of the deterioration in the surplus, 
spending increases are responsible for 28 percent, technical changes--
primarily lower revenue assumptions--are responsible for 27 percent, 
and the recession is responsible for 9 percent.
  Looking more in-depth at the aforementioned spending increases, the 
vast majority of the spending increases were in the areas of defense 
and homeland security, and were requested by President Bush. From 2001 
to 2003, an average of 70 percent of the spending increases went to 
defense, 14 percent went to homeland security, and 11 percent went to 
NYC, aviation, and international aid.
  When Republicans talk about reducing ``government spending,'' they 
are generally referring to non-defense discretionary spending. While 
Republicans act as if non-defense discretionary spending only includes 
wasteful welfare programs, the reality is that it includes law 
enforcement programs, education, veterans, environmental protection, 
health care, Army Corps, energy, etc. Congress could eliminate the 
entire non-defense, non-homeland security portion of the federal 
budget--$391 billion--and the budget would still be in deficit by 
several hundred billion dollars.
  I agree there are federal programs that deserve to be eliminated or 
reduced. I support reducing the space program, agriculture subsidies, 
weapon systems that are irrelevant to meeting today's threats, and 
foreign aid, among other areas.
  However, spending restraint alone cannot solve the deficit problem. 
Getting the federal budget under control will require discipline on 
both spending and taxation. That is why the budgets I am supporting 
today contain both spending and restraint and reductions in tax relief 
to the wealthiest one percent of income earners and multinational 
corporations.
  I am also a cosponsor of stand-alone legislation, H.R. 3995, the 
Aspiring Fiscal Honesty and Accountability Act of 2004, to impose some 
discipline on the federal budget process. This legislation would cap 
discretionary spending for the next 3 years at the same level requested 
by President Bush. The bill would also reinstate the so-called ``pay-
as-you-go'' rules that helped bring the budget into balance in the late 
1990s. These rules require that any legislative changes that would 
increase the deficit--whether spending increases or tax cuts--must be 
offset by cuts or revenue increases somewhere else in the budget. H.R. 
3995 would also reform the ``emergency'' spending loophole that allows 
Congress to spend billions of dollars a year outside the normal budget 
process.
  Finally, I disagree with the spending priorities in the Republican 
budget. For example, the Republican budget provides $8.8 billion less 
for education programs than the $34.3 billion authorized by the No 
Child Left Behind Act for 2005. That means local school districts will 
continue to struggle with the unfunded mandates of the President's key 
education initiative.
  And, inexplicably, the House Republican budget follows the 
President's lead by cutting programs to assist America's small 
businesses. There are 23 million small businesses in the United States, 
representing 99 percent of all employers. The generate three-fourths of 
all new jobs. They create more than half of our GDP. Small technology 
companies are the trailblazers, producing 13-14 times more patents per 
employees than large firms. Small companies employ 40 percent of high-
tech workers. Funding for the Small Business Administration has 
decreased every year since President Bush took office. If the 
Republicans have their way, the microloan and New Market Venture 
Capital programs will be eliminated, funding for Women's Business 
Centers, technical assistance, and technology programs will be cut, and 
the SBA's largest loan program, the 7(a) programs, will be slashed and 
fees will be increased. These policies are harmful at any time, but 
they are particularly detrimental to our Nation's small businesses 
during a time of economic instability.
  The Republican budget provides $1.3 billion less for veterans 
programs in 2005 than what the House Committee on Veterans Affairs 
recommended on a bipartisan basis. It provides $2 billion less for 
veterans programs than what veterans themselves requested in their 
Independent Budget proposal.
  That is why veterans organizations, including Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America have called the Republican budget ``half-hearted'' and ``ill-
advised''. They urged a vote against it and said the Republican budget 
``would be a disservice to those men and women who have served this 
country and who are currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around 
the world in our fight against terrorism.''
  I am also concerned that the Republican budget cuts homeland security 
funding by $857 million below even the level requested by President 
Bush, which includes cuts to port security grants and cuts to grants 
for our Nation's first responders like police and firefighters.
  Because the Republican budget borrows so much money, runs up record 
budget deficits, and still fails to adequately fund priority programs 
that Oregonians depend on, I will vote against the Republican budget.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to support the budget 
resolution before us today. While the budget before us makes great 
strides to control spending and reduce the deficit, I am afraid the 
Veterans Administration will not have the necessary resources to take 
care of our nation's veterans. I know that many of my Virginia 
congressional colleagues share these same concerns as well.
  While I fully recognize that no budget is perfect, I hope we can all 
agree that providing health care to our nation's veterans should be the 
last place we look to reduce spending. Perhaps it would be more 
appropriate for us to review our spending on foreign aid before we ask 
our veterans to sacrifice yet again for their country. At a time when 
our country has soldiers deployed in Iraq in defense of freedom, it is 
important that we do not leave behind the men and women who have served 
our country in the past.
  To this end, I want to express my support of an amendment to the 
Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Resolution, offered by my colleague from 
Virginia, Virgil Goode. Unfortunately, this amendment will not be 
offered on the floor today for a vote, but it does, however, deserve 
our attention. Mr. Goode's amendment calls for an $8 billion cut from 
foreign aid spending, using that money instead to further assist our 
Nation's veterans and decrease the size of our federal deficit.
  This important measure would redirect funds used across seas and 
place it back in the hands of the American people. By paying down our 
Federal deficit we are investing in the future of America and by 
providing healthcare for our veterans we are repaying them for the 
personal investments they have made on our behalf. Mr. Speaker, the 
time has come when America must pay its debts, and that time as now.
  I will vote for this budget, however, because I believe it is vital 
that we keep the budget process moving. Further delaying the budget 
could negatively impact defense, homeland security, and other important 
government functions, as well as cause spending for our veterans to 
revert to previous levels. As we have seen in the past, failing to pass 
a budget resolution causes a train wreck in the appropriations process. 
With America still fighting the war on terror, we cannot allow that to 
happen again.

[[Page 5331]]

  It is my hope that the final product will be improved dramatically, 
so that I will be able to support the final budget conference report. I 
will have great reservations in supporting this budget again should it 
be returned to the House in its current form.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. economy has shown truly 
amazing resilience after the many challenges of the last few years, 
including: a terrorist attack, war, corporate scandals and recession. 
In spite of these factors: real GDP growth was 8.2 percent in the 3rd 
quarter of 2003, the highest pace in two decades, housing starts are at 
the highest level in 20 years, mortgage rates are the lowest in over 30 
years, and payroll employment has increased by 364,000 jobs in the past 
6 months.
  This is good news for every American family. Economic growth is the 
key to prosperity for everyone. And the Republican budget is the plan 
that will ensure that these growth trends continue.
  One way this budget encourages sustained economic growth is by not 
raising taxes. Under the budget drafted by Chairman Nussle, there will 
be no reduction in the child tax credit, no increase in the marriage 
penalty, and no lowering of the income limit for the 10 percent tax 
bracket. Raising taxes, as the Democrats have proposed, would be a 
severe blow to the recovering economy and to young families.
  The Democrats believe that taxes should be raised to pay for more 
government spending. During the Budget Committee markup the Democrats 
proposed to increase spending by $28.6 billion next year, paid for by 
raising taxes by $28.9 billion next year.
  I ask my colleagues, why do we need more spending and higher taxes? 
Spending by the Federal Government has reached over $20,000 per 
household. I find that total staggering. I dare say that most families 
could do great good for their children with a fraction of that amount 
back in the family budget.
  Some people have blamed the deficit on the tax cuts. In reality, the 
downturn in the economy is the largest factor in erasing the surplus. 
And we must keep in mind that the projected surpluses as far as the eye 
could see were just on paper, they were never guaranteed. The good news 
is that the economy is recovering faster than expected, and that growth 
will be a significant factor in reducing future deficits. The key is 
for Congress to stay out of the way of economic growth.
  The runaway spending that followed the rosy surplus projections is 
the second largest contributing factor that has pushed us into deficit 
spending. Since 1997, spending has increased 3.6 percent faster than 
inflation and as revenue began dropping in 2000, spending continued to 
climb. Spending in time of war or national emergency is warranted, but 
now spending restraint is necessary or we will never return to a 
balanced budget.
  The Republican budget plan puts us on track to cut the deficit in 
half in 4 years. We must be faithful to a plan of fiscal responsibility 
or our children and grandchildren will inherit a debt they can't afford 
to pay.
  This budget blueprint holds the line on spending to keep the 
government from dragging down the economy. This does not mean that 
every program will be treated the same by the Appropriations Committee. 
It does mean that priorities will have to be set and hard choices will 
have to be made.
  Some worthy programs will receive a funding increase and other less 
effective or unproven programs may receive a cut. These decisions are 
up to the Appropriations Committee. The Budget Committee is simply 
setting the aggregate spending numbers. The nondefense, nonhomeland 
security discretionary number is frozen at last years funding level. 
This is a responsible decision when spending is driving us toward a 
deficit that could be nearly impossible to overcome.
  I believe the numbers in our budget will have the government 
operating as a wise steward of taxpayer dollars. Our constituents are 
demanding accountability for these dollars and this budget plan 
delivers.
  I urge your support for this budget.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to oppose the budget under 
consideration today. Some believe they must accept the President's 
request for higher defense spending. Too many Members of Congress 
believe that a vote against higher defense budgets is tantamount to 
being ``weak on defense.'' But what they ignore is the fact that the 
President's defense number is weak on defense contractors. It gives 
nearly everything the contractors could want, and as I will show in a 
minute, it fails to make Americans safer.
  How does the V-22 tilt rotor--which has killed 30 Marines in a crash 
rate of 18 percent--make Americans any safer? Of course it doesn't. But 
spending $1.75 billion to procure it makes the contractor richer.
  How does the so-called National Missile Defense--which has not been 
shown to work, according to the DOD's own director of testing--make 
America any safer? It doesn't. But it does make the contractor richer.
  How does the F-22 airplane, which suffers from exorbitant cost 
overruns and offers little improvement over today's more than capable 
F-15, make America any safer? Again, it doesn't. But at a cost of $4.7 
billion in this year's budget, the contractors will see great profits.
  Rather than buying a false idea of security by handing billions to 
defense contractors for hardware that doesn't work, can't work, or 
won't work to defend against the threats of today, let's buy the 
defense we do need and invest the rest in economy security.
  America needs jobs. The Nation has lost 2.2 million total jobs since 
President Bush took office. Experts had expected an increase of 125,000 
new jobs in February, but in reality companies added just 21,000 new 
jobs last month. Manufacturing lost 3,000 jobs in February, a 43-month 
continuous slide. Since July 2000, the manufacturing sector has shed 
2.8 million of its jobs. And the construction industry is suffering 
under a 9.3-percent unemployment rate.
  There were 8.2 million unemployed workers in February. Yet this 
number is low; 1.7 million additional workers were not counted in the 
unemployment figures, as they hadn't looked for a job in the prior 4 
weeks.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues face a quandary today. Many of them are 
going to vote for large deficits and reduced domestic spending in order 
to fund a $26.5 billion increase in defense spending. To do that means 
Congress will not spend enough money to create jobs. And jobs are the 
bottom line for Americans.
  There is a better approach for a safer and stronger America. First we 
will reduce defense spending to last year's request, although much more 
could be cut. That still leaves a defense budget increase of 26 percent 
since 2001, not accounting for the extra funds for Afghanistan or Iraq, 
some $186 billion. The $26.5 billion can then be shifted to the 
Transportation Equity Act--a Legacy for Users (TEA-LU) to create jobs. 
Over 6 years, this increases the TEA-LU authorization, set by the 
committee at $275 billion, to $434 billion, a full $59 billion above 
the initial goal of the chairman and ranking member of the 
Transportation Committee. More importantly, the large infusion of cash 
into our nation's transportation infrastructure means hundreds of 
thousands of jobs and a dependable infrastructure system allowing the 
economy to continue to grow.
  Sensible cuts in defense spending can fund more jobs for Americans 
who desperately need them. Our country's economic strength, our ability 
to create jobs and improve business productivity, and our desire to 
create a safe, efficient transportation system are all-dependent upon 
increasing investment in our Nation's infrastructure. The Department of 
Transportation's own studies show that every $1 billion of Federal 
funds invested in highway infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs and $6.2 
billion in economic activity. Authorizing $434 billion over 6 years for 
our transportation infrastructure will yield tremendous job growth and 
other economic benefits. In short, defense cuts can create more jobs 
for Americans.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the FY2005 Concurrent Budget 
Resolution that was reported by the House Budget Committee and that we 
have before this House for final passage. I do so for a variety of 
reasons that I want to explain.
  I am heartened by our country's recent up tick in the index of 
leading economic indicators. Yet, we are also chastened because we all 
count among our families, friends, and neighbors, dislocated workers 
who have fallen victim to corporate down-sizing and dismayed recent 
college graduates and long-term unemployed Americans who are looking 
for their first or next jobs. All are seeking to grasp a rung up the 
ladder of economic opportunity, and this budget will not help them.
  This misguided budget resolution frames critical policy choices for 
our national economy that will shape our lives and the lives of all of 
our constituents at the regional, State, community, and personal levels 
for many years to come.
  One policy option, that is embodied in this flawed budget resolution, 
is to keep borrowing against our future and that of our children, and 
perhaps their children, to keep our economic ship afloat. This is how 
we have added more to the national debt in the past three years than in 
the prior two centuries of our Nation's history. A vote in favor of 
this budget resolution is a vote for more ``borrow and spend'' policies 
that are responsible for our country's current fiscal nightmare.
  Adding insult to fiscal injury, this budget resolution also clears 
the way for more tax cuts

[[Page 5332]]

for those who need them the least, given the predisposition of the Bush 
Administration, and who have benefited disproportionately from the Bush 
tax cuts enacted by this Republican-controlled Congress so far. Where 
is the tidal wave of re-investment in new plants, equipment, and jobs 
and factories in America that the proponents of this budget have 
promised us repeatedly in the past three years? At their behest, the 
American people are required to put our collective faith in the belief 
that the ladder of economic opportunity will not be pulled up behind 
the most affluent. If we continue down this ill-advised, self-indulgent 
path, we run the risk of drowning in a sea of red ink and our children 
and grandchildren can look forward to lives of indebtedness and growing 
inequality.
  This Congress could make a better choice. In so doing, we could build 
upon what has worked in the past when our economy was growing by leaps 
and bounds and creating millions of new jobs, as recently as the 1990s. 
We could abandon the fraud of supply-side economics, once and for all, 
step up, and reassert control over shaping our preferred economic 
future--one that offers more good jobs, a higher standard of living, 
and real economic opportunity for all of the American people. Sadly, 
this budget resolution takes us farther down the wrong track.
  Over several generations, American economic wealth and power has been 
built largely on the foundation of unparalleled imagination, research, 
innovation, productivity, and hard work. Investment and commercial 
opportunity in our economic system have always followed new discoveries 
and laboratory breakthroughs, not the other way around. Before prudent 
investors have risked their capital in new commercial ventures, our 
scientists, inventors, and pioneer thinkers have been supported in 
their efforts and rewarded for their successes in achieving what had 
previously been unthinkable.
  If we want to strengthen our economy again, in the future, if we want 
to create new, good-paying jobs for all of our people, and promote 
broad-based, sustainable economic development, then I believe we must 
become more creative and provide more support from the public and 
private sector for cutting-edge research and development. We have to 
stop borrowing and spending. We have to stop eating our seed corn. We 
have to provide increased and more sustained support from the public 
and private sectors for basic research and development.
  Up to now, America has always been a nation of explorers, creators, 
and inventors. We need to regain that edge and ride a new wave of 
research and follow-on commercial development into a new age of 
economic growth and prosperity. But this budget resolution does none of 
this. The supporters of this budget don't want to keep faith and invest 
in the American people, increase Federal support for research, 
development, and entrepreneurial drive, and rebuild American 
competitiveness in the global economy. If they did, they could not in 
good conscience vote for the skewed priorities of this budget 
resolution and the Draconian, counterproductive cuts it will dictate.
  Let me cite a few of the most glaring examples:
  On Federal support for research and development, the Federal research 
and development portfolio would mostly decline compared to last year's 
funding, consistent with the 0.5 percent increase for nondefense, 
nonhomeland security discretionary spending overall. Even the two 
favored nondefense research and development agencies in recent years 
are being forced to accept diminished expectations: The National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
  On education, this budget again short-changes our students, teachers, 
and schools. It will provide $8.8 billion less than authorized and 
promised when the Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act at the 
urging of President Bush. It fails to provide any increase in the 
maximum Pell grant award at a time of soaring tuition costs in higher 
education. It also falls way short in funding of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), providing only half of the 40 
percent Federal funding ceiling.
  For America's veterans, this budget is another slap in the face and 
betrayal of what they have earned and been promised. This budget 
provides $1.3 billion less than what the House Veterans' Affairs 
Committee has recommended--on a bipartisan basis--to maintain vital 
veterans health care programs. Over the next five years, this budget 
cuts $1.6 billion from the total needed just to maintain current 
service levels. In practical terms, this shortfall will imperil health 
care for at least 170,000 veterans. Alternatively, it will result in 
13,000 fewer doctors, nurses, and other caregivers needed to treat 
veterans. No wonder the Disabled Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS are all strongly opposed to 
this budget.
  On the environment, this budget promises more tax cuts, while cutting 
funding for clean air, safe drinking water, and the cleanup of toxic 
waste sites. It actually calls for cutting $1.5 billion (5.1 percent) 
from last year's funding level. That means clean water and drinking 
water needs, like the elevated lead levels in DC's water supply, will 
go unmet. Groundwater contamination from leaking MTBE and petroleum 
will continue. Promised conservation funding will not be provided and 
American taxpayers will foot the bill for egregious corporate 
polluters.
  On homeland security, this budget provides $648 million (14.6 
percent) less than last year for first responders, with firefighter 
assistance grants in particular being cut by $246 million (33 percent) 
below last year. It also cuts funding for port security by $79 million 
(63.2 percent) below last year's funding level. At a time when our 
Nation continues to face new threats to homeland security, it cuts $857 
million from the President's request, applying cuts to all homeland 
security activities outside of the Pentagon.
  On health care, this budget requires $2.2 billion in Medicaid cuts at 
precisely the time when nearly every State has already been forced to 
cut their Medicaid programs. It forfeits $1.1 billion for State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which means 4,000,000 
children will lose coverage over the next four years. NIH will be cut 
by $553 million below last year's funding level, when adjusted for 
inflation and over the next five years, public health programs face an 
$11.4 billion shortfall. With over 887,000 people in the U.S. living 
with HIV/AIDS, this budget cuts $28 million. Cardiovascular disease 
research will be cut by $22 million, even though heart disease is the 
leading cause of death in America.
  For American workers, this budget gives them the back of the hand. It 
fails to extend unemployment benefits and drastically shortchanges 
child care funding, when work requirements for welfare recipients are 
being toughened. It calls for $3.1 billion in cuts for safety net 
programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the earned 
income tax credit, child nutrition programs, and public employee 
retirement benefits.
  For our small business constituents and entrepreneurs, this budget is 
badly deficient. While funding for the Small Business Administration is 
not broken out as a separate function in this budget resolution, the 
Bush Administration has already made clear its intention to slash SBA 
funding in FY 2005 and beyond. President Bush's FY 2005 budget calls 
for cutting at least $79 million for the SBA from last year's funding. 
That would leave total funding for the SBA at nearly half of what was 
proposed in Former President Clinton's final budget request. It would 
also remove all Federal subsidies to the 7(a) loan program, the SBA's 
flagship program, and instead place higher fees on small businesses. 
The microloan program is targeted for elimination altogether.
  I could go on and on with examples of why this budget ought to be 
rejected. Suffice it to say that it is more of the same policy 
prescriptions that have caused an $8.5 trillion fiscal slide and the 
loss of nearly 3 million jobs in the last three years.
  We can and should do better. I want to support a budget that reflects 
fiscal responsibility and that will help all Americans achieve 
financial security. That means investing more in the American people 
and in programs to help create good-paying jobs, improve education, 
lower health care costs, make college affordable, helps small business 
grow, keeps faith with our veterans and military retirees, protects our 
homeland, and promote environmental sustainability. This budget 
resolution fails on all counts.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget being debated today 
shortchanges California and shortchanges America. It is fiscally 
irresponsible, fails to address the tremendous challenges facing 
America today, and fails to invest in America's future.
  Rather than ensuring a stable source of income for seniors and the 
disabled, the Republican budget raids the Social Security trust fund. 
Rather than investing in health care, education and job creation, 
Republicans have chosen to spend trillions of dollars on tax cuts. As a 
result of the Republicans' misguided priorities and fiscal 
irresponsibility, America is facing record deficits, with no end in 
sight. These deficits threaten to lead to increased interest rates, 
uncertainty in financial markets and slower economic growth.
  The Republican budget fails to help those Californians who need it 
most. Republicans refuse to provide funds for the extension of 
unemployment benefits, despite the fact that

[[Page 5333]]

an estimated 300,000 Californians will have exhausted their benefits by 
the end of June. Likewise, the Republican budget cuts funding for 
important child and family services like Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families, the Earned Income Tax Credit, affordable housing and 
Medicaid.
  I am also concerned because I believe our troops and veterans have 
earned our honor and support. Yet despite their brave service to our 
country, the Republican budget denies promised benefits to our military 
personnel and their families here at home--by cutting funding for 
veterans' programs.
  On the other hand, Democrats have a budget that reflects the 
priorities of the people of California, and of all Americans. It 
extends unemployment benefits for workers looking for jobs; invests in 
programs that create good jobs; ensures retirement security; provides 
for affordable and accessible health care; funds education, including 
the ``No Child Left Behind Act''; and supports our troops and veterans. 
It is a fiscally sound plan that brings the budget back into balance 
within eight years. Moreover, to ensure fiscal discipline in the 
future, it requires that future tax cuts and mandatory spending 
initiatives be paid for without adding to the deficit.
  For those reasons, I will vote for the Democratic alternative. Where 
the Republicans budget fails, the Democratic budget provides sound 
economic and fiscal policies that reflect the priorities of people in 
California and across the country.
  Mr PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I once again find myself compelled to vote 
against the annual budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 393, for a very 
simple reason: it makes government bigger. Like many of my Republican 
colleagues who curiously voted for today's enormous budget, I campaign 
on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This 
means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over 
previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget 
that did not slash Federal spending by at least 25 percent, a feat that 
becomes less unthinkable when we remember that the Federal budget in 
1990 was less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the 
Federal Government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago? Hardly. 
It once took more than 100 years for the Federal budget to double, now 
it takes less than a decade. We need to end the phony rhetoric about 
``priorities'' and recognize Federal spending as the runaway freight 
train that it is. A Federal Government that spends $2.4 trillion in 1 
year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation's GDP is far too 
large.
  Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken 
issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for 
government in our society? Are these ever-growing social services and 
defense expenditures really proper in a free country? We need to 
understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. 
Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating 
whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget 
should exist at all. My Republican colleagues especially ought to know 
this. Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle 
and pander to the entitlements crowd. But this approach will backfire, 
because Democrats will always offer to spend even more than 
Republicans. When Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, 
Democrats will offer $600 billion. Why not? It's all funny money 
anyway, and it helps them get re-elected.
  I object strenuously to the term ``baseline budget.'' In Washington, 
this means that the previous year's spending levels represent only a 
baseline starting point. Both parties accept that each new budget will 
spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more. If 
Republicans offer a budget that grows Federal spending by 3 percent, 
while Democrats seek 6 percent growth, Republicans trumpet that they 
are the party of smaller government. But expanding the government 
slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it.
  Furthermore, today's budget debate further entrenches the phony 
concept of discretionary versus nondiscretionary spending. An 
increasing percentage of the annual Federal budget is categorized as 
``nondiscretionary'' entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly 
has no choice whether to fund certain programs. In fact, roughly two-
thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary 
spending. When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the Federal 
budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either. 
Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5 
trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at 
budget time? The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a big-
government statist's dream, because it assumes that we as a society 
simply have accepted that most of the Federal leviathan must be funded 
as a matter of course. No program or agency should be considered 
sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable.
  The assertion that this budget will reduce taxes is nonsense. Budget 
bills do not change the tax laws one bit. Congress can pass this budget 
today and raise taxes tomorrow--budget and tax bills are completely 
separate and originate from different committees. The budget may make 
revenue projections based on tax cuts, but the truth is that Congress 
has no idea what Federal revenues will be in any future year. 
Similarly, the deficit reduction supposedly contained in the budget is 
illusory. The Federal government always spends more in future years 
than originally projected, and always runs single-year deficits when on 
factors in raids on funds supposedly earmarked for Social Security. The 
notion that today's budget will impose fiscal restraint on Congress in 
the future is laughable--Congress will vote for new budgets every year 
without the slightest regard for what we do today.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have discussed the details of this budget 
ad nauseam. The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending 
would not be needed if Congress stopped trying to build an empire 
abroad and a nanny state at home. Our interventionist foreign policy 
and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this Nation if we do not 
change the way we think about the proper role of the Federal 
government.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, one day history will judge us and our 
stewardship of this country. Our children and grandchildren will ask 
whether we led this country soundly, meeting our challenges 
forthrightly and honestly, taking care of the most vulnerable among us, 
and preparing the ground for future generations, so that they may know 
peace and prosperity.
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that instead of judging us as one of the 
Greatest Generations, we will be known simply as the Greedy Generation.
  Once again the Majority has put forth a budget that would place a 
greater and greater burden of debt onto the next generation, so that we 
might take our tax cuts now. It's a budget that short-changes the 
promises we have made to our children's education, to our veterans' 
health, and to the safety and security of our communities, so that we 
may take our tax cuts now. During this time when we face some of the 
greatest challenges this country has ever known--the challenges of two 
and a half million jobs lost, of 43 million Americans without health 
insurance, of terrorists who still plot to do us harm--this Congress 
can apparently muster no more inspiring response than, ``give us our 
tax cuts now.''
  Mr. Chairman, it's not hard to identify the many problems with this 
budget. Instead of ensuring that all our children have equal access to 
education and opportunity, this budget under-funds the No Child Left 
Behind Act by $8.8 billion. Instead of securing our nation's harbors 
and waterways, this budget proposes a 63 percent cut in port security 
grant funding. Under this budget, more than 250,000 families could lose 
affordable housing. Veterans will face millions of dollars in new 
enrollment and access fees for health care. The list goes on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to think about how we will be 
judged in the eyes of history. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
irresponsible budget resolution and let us work together, from both 
sides of the aisle, to head this country in a direction that makes us 
stronger, safer, and more prosperous.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong 
support of the Democratic Leadership Substitute and in opposition to 
the Republican Budget, H. Con. Res. 393, which fails to meet the fiscal 
and societal challenges Americans face today. While the Republican 
budget focuses on a tax cut for only a few, slashes important funding 
for health care, veterans, education and environmental programs, and 
does little to revive the economy, the Democratic plan is a fiscally 
responsible solution to balance the budget, reign in the deficit, fund 
priorities, and promote job creation and economic growth.
  The Democratic Leadership Substitute achieves a balanced federal 
budget within eight years and invests in meaningful job creation, 
education, veterans benefits, environmental protection, infrastructure 
and economic development.
  Since 2001, the economy has lost more than 3 million private sector 
jobs. In the Kansas City Metropolitan Area in the past three years, 
21,300 jobs have been lost. The Republican proposal we are considering 
today continues the Administration's same failed economic policies, 
which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has concluded will have, at 
best, a small impact on the economy over

[[Page 5334]]

the next five years. Alternatively, the Democratic substitute promotes 
job creation by restoring funding to small business loan programs, job 
training and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. 
Additionally, it extends temporary federal unemployment benefits for 
workers looking for jobs and extended tax cuts, such as the child tax 
credit and marriage penalty relief.
  The Republican budget does not adequately fund our nation's top 
priority: homeland security. Of particular concern is its failure to 
fully fund our first responders including police, firefighters, and 
emergency medical service technicians. Federal funds for first 
responders is a top concern in my district and across the country, and 
the Democratic substitute ensures these needs by providing $5 billion 
in additional funding over the next five years. As a member of the 
Select Committee on Homeland Security, I support adequate funding for 
state and local governments to prevent and prepare for any type of 
terrorist threat.
  The Democratic budget also restores funding to important veterans 
programs that the Republican resolution cuts. It provides the full 
funding level, $32.3 billion, requested for 2005 by the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs. Additionally, it includes $6.6 billion more than the 
Republican budget over the next five years for critical health needs.
  The Republican budget resolution shortchanges authorized education 
programs by approximately $9 billion just as many costly federal 
mandates, such as annual testing and highly qualified teacher 
requirements, will take effect. It is unacceptable to impose federal 
mandates on the states without the funding necessary to fulfill them. 
As a formal teacher, I understand how important education is to the 
future of our children. The Republican budget also proposes the 
smallest overall increase for education programs in nine years. 
Additionally, it falls further behind on fully funding special 
education by proposing only a 0.5 percent increase in funding. Finally, 
it freezes Pell Grant funding, making college unaffordable for millions 
of low income students. Alternatively, the Democratic substitute 
provides $9.8 billion more for education and training programs over the 
next five years. It also restores $3.7 billion for Pell grants and 
additional funding to make college loans more affordable.
  The federal budget resolution must fulfill the priorities of the 
American people. It must be fiscally responsible in ensuring our 
security, providing adequate funding for domestic programs, putting 
Americans back to work and balancing the budget. With passage of the 
Democratic Leadership Substitute, we can work together to put the 
priorities of the American people first.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution fails to meet the 
fiscal challenges Americans face today and slashes programs that are 
their lifeline. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic 
substitute as a more realistic budgetary solution that funds programs 
essential to those who seek the American dream.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, Michigan has one of the highest 
unemployment figures in the country, and that figure continues to rise. 
Michigan's unemployment rate is 7.6 percent, the Upper Peninsula's 
jobless rate is 8.6 percent, and Northeast Lower Michigan's jobless 
rate is 12.4 percent.
  But the Republican budget does nothing to create jobs here at home or 
end incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. It cuts small 
business investment and fails to extend unemployment insurance for 
millions of jobless Americans, including 335,868 unemployed residents 
of Michigan. And it includes new tax cuts--while our nation's checkbook 
sinks deeper in the red--with a $531 billion deficit.
  I offered proposals that were rejected along partisan lines by the 
Rules Committee that would have put fiscal sanity into our budgeting 
process. My amendment said, no new tax cuts unless we have a surplus 
that can pay for it and no tax breaks for companies that ship jobs 
overseas.
  Yes, we have to make hard choices given the record deficits we have 
today. However, I cannot choose tax cuts over the priorities of the 
working families and seniors of Michigan. At town hall meetings and in 
letters, my constituents tell me: protect our jobs and manufacturers, 
protect our Social Security and Medicare, fund education, provide 
affordable health care and make our communities safer. This budget 
shortchanges all of those priorities. Here are just two examples:
  Michigan's Medicaid rolls have increased by almost 30 percent in the 
past four years. But this budget cuts Medicaid by $2.2 billion, while 
including a $46 billion dollar give-away to HMO's.
  In Michigan, 128,900 manufacturing jobs have been lost since the 
beginning of 2001. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 
program has been highly successful in helping small Michigan 
manufacturers to modernize and stay competitive in the global 
marketplace. MEP has directly helped companies in my district including 
Horner Flooring of Dollar Bay and Jacquart Fabric Products in Ironwood, 
Michigan.
  Rather than support the Republican blue-print, which makes an 
expanding deficit worse and under-funds veterans programs, health care, 
education, and first-responder programs, I support the Democratic and 
Blue Dog Democrat alternatives. Both combine fiscal responsibility with 
help for our working families. Unlike the Republican budget, the 
Democratic and Blue Dog alternatives would get us back on track to a 
balanced budget and include a ``pay as you go'' budget enforcement 
mechanism. Both plans repeal the marriage penalty and provide for a 
child tax credit that working families depend on during these uncertain 
economic times. And both make key investments in our job training, 
small business, health care, education, and veterans.
  It is clear to me that these alternatives better reflect the values 
of Americans and the residents of the First District of Michigan, will 
create more jobs, and will restore fiscal discipline to Washington that 
I know the people of Michigan want and expect.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent 
to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I am here today because I am deeply concerned about the 
devastating impact House Concurrent Resolution 393 could have on my 
community of San Diego.
  As many of you know, my home state of California is in the midst of 
its own budget crisis.
  To cope with our oversized deficit, the Governor and State 
Legislature have had to make significant cuts to many of our most vital 
programs and services.
  And as our State struggles to rebuild its economy, I am concerned 
that we are not taking the right steps here, in Congress, to provide 
States like California with the resources they need to maintain even 
the most basic day-to-day functions that our citizens have come to 
depend upon.
  And when I look at the cuts this budget resolution makes to 
education, housing, the environment, veterans health care, homeland 
security, local law enforcement, and Social Security--I am concerned 
that this legislation fails to reflect the needs and priorities of San 
Diego's families and businesses.
  To illustrate this point, I would like to talk about a few key areas 
that have been left behind by this resolution.
  For example, this budget resolution deeply undercuts funding for 
homeland security, State and local law enforcement, and the community-
based COPS Program.
  People often forget just how much we rely on our local law 
enforcement personnel to defend our homeland security.
  Short-changing police at the State and local level ultimately weakens 
our ability to defend our cities, ports, and borders.
  With the terrorist bombing in Madrid just a few weeks ago, we are 
reminded of the need to expand our policing efforts to protect 
vulnerable targets like mass transportation.
  Yet there are simply not enough law enforcement personnel in my 
district to patrol this critical infrastructure, and without adequate 
funding, it will remain that way.
  San Diego is home to a busy international airport, a major port, Navy 
installations, Marine bases, and is adjacent to the busiest border 
crossing in the country.
  We cannot afford these massive cuts in State and local law 
enforcement and homeland security.
  Like so many other localities, our dedicated policemen and women want 
to help. But their hands are tied.
  Mr. Chairman, the other issue I want to talk about today is just how 
destructive cuts to the section 8 program could be for San Diego.
  My family and I have lived in San Diego for more than 30 years, and I 
will be the first to tell you how wonderful it is to call such a 
beautiful community home.
  Unfortunately, with an average median home cost of more than 
$468,000, it has become unbearably difficult for many hopeful 
homebuyers to live in our great city.
  And it is not just home prices that are increasingly out of range for 
the average citizen.
  The average apartment rent in San Diego is over $1 thousand, and 
families need to earn more than $22 per hour to afford to rent a two-
bedroom apartment.
  Our waiting list for section 8 vouchers averages about 25 thousand 
individuals, many of whom have been on the list for 6 or 7 years before 
finally receiving a voucher.
  I hear all too often stories of individuals or families struggling to 
make ends meet, yet are still unable to afford San Diego's housing or 
even rental costs.

[[Page 5335]]

  I know of a retired minister in his seventies with a serious heart 
condition, who is constantly faced with the choice of filling his heart 
medication prescription or paying his rent.
  There are residents in my district, who have been displaced and--
unable to afford rent anywhere else--have been forced to live in motels 
or even in their own cars.
  A San Diego paramedic with a wife and small children struggled to get 
by until they finally qualified to live in an affordable housing 
development funded by our local Housing Commission.
  But just imagine--this man was saving lives in our own community and 
yet he was unable to afford to live there!
  Mr. Chairman, it is just not right for our first responders and 
police officers to be priced out of the very community they put their 
lives on the line to protect each day.
  Section 8 is a vital, successful program, and my community simply 
cannot afford to withstand the cuts proposed in this measure.
  We should be doing more--not less--to help hard-working Americans 
find safe, affordable places to live, and I ask my colleagues to 
consider the critical shortfalls included in this budget when we vote 
on this resolution.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, as a member of both the Congressional Black 
Caucus and the Energy and Commerce Committee, I rise in opposition to 
H. Con. Res. 393, the first concurrent resolution on the budget, which 
will set this House's spending and revenue priorities for the next 
fiscal year.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposing this resolution not only because it 
freezes the rate of growth in the domestic programs that are so 
important to my constituents--programs that fund education, health 
care, community development and affordable housing, but also, because 
does so while making additional future tax cuts permanent and because 
it devastates the Medicaid program by reducing it by $2.2 billion over 
the next 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, unlike the Republican leadership's budget resolution, 
both the Congressional Black Caucus substitute and the Democratic 
budget alternative promote necessary domestic investments in homeland 
security, education, job training, and workforce development. The 
Congressional Black Caucus substitute invests in education and the 
workforce by fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act and by 
extending unemployment benefits for those who have exhausted their 
regular jobless benefits.
  Furthermore, neither the Democratic budget alternative nor the 
Congressional Black Caucus substitute reduce the Medicaid program.
  Mr. Chairman, the Medicaid recipients and their families in my 
Congressional district want assurances from the leadership in this 
House that the critical needs that the most vulnerable in my State of 
Illinois will continue to be met.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget substitute and the Democratic budget 
alternative so that this Congress can work toward a sane and balanced 
budget policy which meets the critical needs of the citizens of this 
Nation.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I know that the Budget Committee weighed 
several pressing national priorities as it prepared the FY 2005 Budget 
Resolution, including the continuing war on terrorism, facilitating 
economic stimulus, and maintaining fiscal responsibility.
  I support the Budget Committee's determination to curb overall 
spending in this year's budget resolution. While I recognize that the 
Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) have critical funding needs, I am disappointed that Function 250, 
which includes basic scientific research and development, did not 
receive the same level of support. Function 250 was flat funded at 
$22.8 billion. This clearly does not provide necessary increases in 
critical basic science programs such as the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
  I am a strong advocate of these programs, and those at the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), because scientific 
research and development underpins our economic and national security. 
Scientific research and development forms the foundation of defense and 
weapons development, increased innovation, and economic vitality. 
Scientific research is an investment that promises, and has 
historically delivered, significant returns on that investment.
  Basic research is essential to advances in medicine, military 
applications and continued economic prosperity, including the 
development of cancer therapies, GPS- or laser-guided missiles, and the 
Internet.
  NSF is also the primary source of Federal funding for nonmedical 
basic research at colleges and universities. It underwrites the 
education of the next generation of scientists, engineers, and 
technical workers.
  As a nation, we cannot afford to starve basic science research and 
education. Continued underfunding of scientific research and education 
will erode America's technical and scientific preeminence, diminish our 
ability to compete economically, and undermine our children's economic 
prosperity and national security.
  While I am disappointed that the FY 2005 Budget Resolution does not 
increase basic research funding in function 250, I, along with many 
colleagues who also support science funding, will fight for these 
programs during the appropriations process. Even in a tight budget 
year, we must remember that we cannot afford to sacrifice the research 
and education which current and future generations need to ensure their 
economic prosperity and domestic security.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition 
to House Concurrent Resolution 393, the budget resolution for Fiscal 
Year 2005. One of the main reasons why I oppose this budget resolution 
is because it appears to parallel the President's budget by also 
underfunding the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). I have strongly urged 
Congress to fully fund the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) for Fiscal Year 
2005 and I believe that the funding levels incorporated into this 
resolution fail to do so.
  It is disheartening that we are approaching the first presidential 
election since the 2000 voting irregularities and the President and 
Congress still appear unwilling to commit the financial resources 
needed to make HAVA's envisioned success a reality.
  Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for HAVA's passage, this 
budget resolution seems to provide for only $65 million of the $600 
million authorized in that landmark law for fiscal 2005.
  Under HAVA, the Federal government authorized $3.9 billion to the 
States to upgrade their voting procedures in the wake of the 2000 
election. State and local governments have traditionally borne these 
costs with virtually no assistance from Congress. By passing and 
signing HAVA into law, Congress and the President demonstrated that the 
Federal Government needs to provide States with a minimum of election-
related resources and technical guidelines.
  We must make this modest investment suggested in HAVA. If fully 
funded by Congress and the President, HAVA will strengthen confidence 
in our electoral process by facilitating the replacement of outdated 
voting equipment, the training of poll workers, and the development of 
improved election procedures.
  Just this week, the new agency created by HAVA, the Election 
Assistance Commission (EAC), held its first public meeting to discuss 
election issues. The EAC is now our national resource for Federal 
election procedures. Thus, the EAC has a very important role in the 
future of our election process, and an equally important role in 
ensuring that we do not repeat the frustrations of the past.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress should guarantee that the work of the 
Commission and other components of HAVA are provided for in our budget 
resolution, which is one of the reasons why I oppose House Concurrent 
Resolution 393 and would like to urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent 
Resolution 393--the House Budget Committee's Federal budget. This bill 
is nothing but fiscal illusion--it is unfair to the average American 
family and it is irresponsible public policy.
  This budget proposal is designed to create record Federal deficits 
while decimating valuable domestic programs. Public education, 
transportation, veterans benefits, environmental protection and small 
business programs would all be drastically cut in order to increase 
defense spending and maintain tax breaks for a select wealthy few.
  Unbelievably, this bill would gut the Social Security surplus in 
order to ensure that tax cuts for the wealthy are not jeopardized. 
Social Security is one of the most successful social programs any 
nation has ever established. It has provided a real and valuable safety 
net to millions of seniors and yet this budget would diminish it in 
order to advance a narrow agenda, an agenda that excludes our Nation's 
seniors, excludes our Nation's children, excludes our Nation's 
veterans, and offers very little to any citizen who is not part of a 
small powerful elite.
  The House Budget Committee bill offers little for education over the 
next 5 years, providing $9.4 billion less than is authorized by No 
Child Left Behind, it also freezes funding for Pell grants, cuts 
funding for Perkins loans, and cuts vocational education by 25 percent.
  And this budget guts $358 million for health programs in 2005, which 
is even less than the

[[Page 5336]]

President requested. And given what we know about the true cost of last 
year's Medicare Prescription Drug sham bill, it is hard to believe that 
this budget proposal offers nothing to help seniors with their 
prescription drug costs while providing $46 billion in special payments 
to HMOs.
  Mr. Chairman, under the former administration the budget was balanced 
for the first time in a generation. Now the current administration has 
squandered that legacy, our $5.6 trillion surplus is gone and now this 
budget bill will help achieve a $3 trillion deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Congressional Black Caucus Alternative 
Budget. This legislative proposal would invest in America's future 
without undermining fiscal stability. This budget plan will improve 
domestic programs that serve American families; it will increase 
funding for homeland security, environmental protection, rail 
transportation, health care and health research. It will also increase 
funding for veterans benefits and for educational programs including 
Head Start, No Child Left Behind, Safe and Drug Free schools, Perkins 
loans, Pell grants and job training, vocational education and adult 
education.
  The Congressional Black Caucus raises revenues by rescinding tax cuts 
for those earning over $200,000 in gross income, it also plugs tax 
loopholes and eliminates tax avoidance schemes that feed the coffers of 
the rich and prevent us from paying down the Federal deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the CBC alternative budget as it is a 
fiscally sound budget that makes a real investment in our Nation's 
future.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, House Republicans offer a budget today out 
of touch with reality, with everyday Americans and with basic math. It 
undermines veterans, working families, States, the southwest border, 
education, homeland security, military housing--and lays bare the real 
math beneath Medicare Reform.
  This House budget provides $1.3 billion less than what the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee recommended--on a bipartisan basis--for these vital 
veterans health care programs. The Democratic budget provides the full 
committee-recommended level of $32.3 billion for 2005, and includes 
$6.6 billion more than the Republican budget over the next 5 years.
  The Democratic budget will: improve access and reduce waiting time 
for all veterans; meet statutory requirements for long-term care by 
increasing the current number of nursing home beds to 1998 levels; 
reduce or eliminate the increased co-payments and enrollment fees 
proposed in the President's budget; increase funds for medical facility 
construction and renovation; and provide the resources necessary for 
more responsive reviews of claims and appeals.
  Lord knows, Mr. Chairman, our veterans desperately need these 
improvements.
  Basic complaints from veterans I have talked to in South Texas have 
focused on access, waiting times, and a severe lack of in-patient care 
in close proximity. We must be guided on spending for veterans by this 
fact: the numbers of soldiers coming home will rapidly increase the 
population of veterans needing services, from health care to education.
  This year, accounting changes at CBO will kill the hugely successful 
Military Housing Privatization Initiative that leverages defense money 
to build quality housing for military families. This Budget Resolution 
effectively cancels adequate family housing for almost 50,000 military 
families.
  I have a personal attachment to the housing privatization 
initiative--it was conceived in Kingsville, TX, out of a need to 
leverage Navy dollars for quality housing for military families. With 
toilets falling through the roofs of housing in South Texas--and no 
money to build other housing--the need was great--and so was our 
creativity.
  The program was a great success. Defense Secretary Perry became a big 
fan of the program in its second year and then made it service-wide. 
This is the very best way to get better housing at our military bases, 
at the best price to taxpayers. I am disappointed that the budget does 
not meet the long-term needs of our veterans and our military families.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget resolution, and urge its rejection by the House.
  Either budget deficits matter or they don't. If anyone here believes 
that deficits don't matter and that the Federal Government can continue 
to borrow and spend hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year 
in perpetuity, then you should vote for the Republican budget. Even if 
one takes the majority's budget resolution at face value, by its own 
admission the Republican budget adds another $1.35 trillion in red ink 
to our Nation's already soaring national debt over the next 5 years. In 
fact, the deficit would be far lower if the Speaker simply adjourned 
the House and sent it home for the next 5 years.
  The reality is that the majority's budget cannot be taken at face 
value. This plan's deficit projections are understated. For example, 
the Republican budget provides $50 billion to cover the cost of 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005, but then includes 
nothing over the next 4 years. Does anyone here seriously believe that 
Iraq and Afghanistan will simply drop off the map and out of the budget 
after 2005?
  The Republican budget also largely ignores the growing problem of the 
Alternative Minimum Tax. Some two and a half million households will 
get hit by this glitch in the Tax Code as they sit down to do their 
taxes this year, with the result that they will lose many of their 
itemized deductions and pay more taxes. The AMT problem gets worse year 
after year, affecting more and more middle class families. If this 
Congress does nothing, the number of households affected by the AMT 
soars to 12 million in 2005 and nearly 15 billion households in 2006. 
If we do nothing, the AMT will raise the taxes of 30 million taxpayers 
by 2010, and yet the Republican budget resolution assumes that Congress 
will do nothing to correct this growing problem in the Tax Code.
  All of us know that we will have to address the AMT problem. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, keeping the AMT at bay 
will cost more $600 billion over the next 10 years. Since the 
majority's plan does not budget for this expense, the funds needed will 
be put on the national credit card to be paid by our children.
  The Republican plan seeks to lock in permanent tax cuts this year 
whose costs explode outside the 5 years covered by this budget, 
including the tax cuts for the very wealthy. The majority's budget puts 
its tax breaks for the very wealthy ahead of everything else: ahead of 
deficit reduction; ahead of preserving Social Security for the 
impending retirement of the Baby Boom generation; ahead of Medicare; 
ahead of veterans programs; ahead of needed investments in education, 
transportation, environmental protection, and health care. Even worse, 
the Republican tax cuts are heavily tilted to the very wealthy.
  I believe that deficits do matter. Because of the bankrupt policies 
of the Bush administration and the majority party, the Federal 
Government will need to borrow half a trillion dollars this year alone. 
If this House approves the majority's budget resolution, you dig the 
deficit hole deeper year after year to the tune of several hundred 
billion dollars each and every year. This is not a sustainable policy, 
and it is a terrible legacy to leave our children.
  I urge the House to reject the Republican budget and vote instead for 
the budget alternative offered by Representative Spratt. The Spratt 
alternative balances the budget, provides middle-class tax relief, and 
funds national priorities such as education, environmental protection, 
veterans benefits, and health care.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired. Under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 393) establishing the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and setting for 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through 
2009, pursuant to House Resolution 574, he reported the concurrent 
resolution back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote on H.R. 3095 under 
suspension of the rules.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 212, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 92]

                               YEAS--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert

[[Page 5337]]


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

                               NAYS--212

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Abercrombie
     Ford
     Lucas (KY)
     McInnis
     Quinn
     Tanner
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1820

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

                          ____________________