[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5106-5142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 154 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 95.

                              {time}  1159


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2005, and 
setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 
through 2010, with Mr. Gillmor (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-19, offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), had been disposed of.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, there shall be a final 
period of general debate at the conclusion of consideration of the 
concurrent resolution for amendment, which shall not exceed 10 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 109-19.


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

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. 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 No. 3 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Watt:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2006.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 
     through 2010 are set forth.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 through 2010:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,643,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,757,771,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,878,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,002,315,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,115,768,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2006: $36,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $38,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $42,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $46,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $49,400,000,000.
       (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 2006: $2,167,892,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,234,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,347,844,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,462,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,567,326,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,173,159,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,227,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,333,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,439,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,545,019,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2006: $-529,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $-469,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $-455,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $-437,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $-429,251,000,000.
       (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 2006: $8,602,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,188,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,767,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,333,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,896,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,039,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,313,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,555,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,760,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $5,941,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2006 through 2010 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2006:

[[Page 5107]]

       (A) New budget authority, $434,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $444,650,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $437,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $455,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $450,234,000,000..
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $466,677,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $478,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,926,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,718,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,571,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,281,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,984,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,706,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,686,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,532,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,147,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,971,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,031,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,811,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,352,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,451,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,306,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,394,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,494,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,420,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,118,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,896,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,317,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,780,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,324,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,190,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,220,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,143,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,326,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,810,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,638,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,911,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $74,668,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,180,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,619,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,537,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,668,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,257,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,056,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,061,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $115,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $117,983,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,710,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $120,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $116,968,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $119,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $121,907,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $263,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $262,872,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $277,813,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $276,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $298,412,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $296,301,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $321,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $317,159,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $342,449,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $340,349,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $331,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $330,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $372,132,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $372,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,766,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $395,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $420,916,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $420,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $449,346,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $355,125,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $356,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $361,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $370,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $373,930,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $381,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $383,313,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $392,106,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $393,720,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,891,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,891,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,704,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,029,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,351,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,849,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,561,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,093,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,029,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,864,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,676,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,461,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,840,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,551,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,249,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,926,000,000.

[[Page 5108]]

       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,741,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,880,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,599,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,442,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,290,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,275,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $308,584,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $308,584,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $355,775,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $355,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $391,505,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $391,505,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $419,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $419,077,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $444,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $444,335,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,761,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,146,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,990,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,199,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$55,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$64,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$65,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$60,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$62,822,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 154, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mario Diaz-Balart) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am honored to stand here as the Chair of the Congressional Black 
Caucus for the 109th Congress and to offer as this substitute amendment 
the Congressional Black Caucus' budget for this year.
  We believe that a budget is a statement of priorities and in that 
respect Members should know where the money is coming from that is 
being budgeted and how the money is being spent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott), who has led the task force for the Congressional Black 
Caucus to put together the budget.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  The Congressional Black Caucus is offering an alternative budget 
proposal that differs from both the President's budget and the House 
majority's budget by putting America and Americans first. Its focus is 
to reduce disparities that exist in America's communities by investing 
in the priorities and challenges that Americans face today. It also 
provides significant support for our troops in Iraq. At the same time, 
the CBC budget alternative accomplishes these goals in a manner that is 
much more fiscally responsible than the Republican budget, so much so, 
as this chart shows, the budget deficit each year is much less, a total 
of a $167 billion deficit reduction over 5 years, so much so that it 
saves just in interest cost alone $27.5 billion over 5 years.
  The Congressional Black Caucus alternative builds for America's 
future and addresses the domestic challenges our country faces. The 
bulk of the CBC budget has been applied to a comprehensive approach to 
education and training. With the intention of closing achievement and 
opportunity gaps in education, the CBC budget dramatically increases 
funding for education and training programs by $23.9 billion over the 
proposed Republican budget next year alone.
  The CBC budget supports public education by fully funding No Child 
Left Behind, provides critical funding for Head Start, TRIO, IDEA, and 
elementary and secondary school counseling. To address the education 
needs of our military families, the CBC budget allocates more funding 
for Impact Aid. Millions of at-risk students are hoping to succeed in 
high school and enroll in college, and to make that dream a reality the 
CBC alternative allocates funding for the GEAR-UP program, raises the 
maximum amount for Pell Grants, increases funding for historically 
black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions. In 
addition, the CBC budget funds for the Perkins student loan program, as 
well as job training, adult education, and vocational education 
programs that are critical in today's global economy.
  In order to close the existing economic disparities in the United 
States and to help entrepreneurs realize the American dream, the CBC 
alternative funds job creation programs under the Small Business 
Administration. It supports community development programs, including 
community development block grants, child nutrition programs, and 
health programs such as Community Health Centers.
  The budget also addresses disparities in housing, and believes that 
everyone in the United States is entitled to a safe and comfortable 
home. It supports HOPE VI, section 8 housing programs, housing for the 
disabled and elderly, and low income energy assistance. The budget also 
provides funding for Amtrak and public transportation.
  The CBC recognizes that advancements in technology and science are 
necessary to maintain America's competitiveness in today's global 
economy. The budget supports funding for research and development, 
particularly in aeronautics and NASA, and increases funding for the 
National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, and the Department of Energy, as well as measures for space 
shuttle safety.
  The Congressional Black Caucus budget alternative also recognizes the 
importance of adding to the safety of our communities by funding 
initiatives such as juvenile crime prevention programs and prisoner 
reentry programs.
  The funding for these important domestic needs comes from rolling 
back tax cuts for an individual's adjusted gross income that is over 
$200,000, and eliminating several abusive tax loopholes, including 
corporate incentives to move jobs overseas. Moreover, the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget does not adopt the new tax cuts included in the 
Republican budget. The CBC revenues are used for the domestic and 
deficit reduction portions of the alternative budget.
  The CBC budget is also committed to making America more secure. The 
funding for urgent homeland security needs, veterans programs and 
benefits, and additional support for defense and our troops in Iraq 
comes from a $7.8 billion reduction in ballistic missile defense, 
leaving $1 billion in the program for continued research.
  It is a priority of the CBC to provide American soldiers with the 
equipment necessary to return home from Iraq in a safe, quick and 
successful manner. To that end, a portion of these funds have been 
reallocated to protect our troops in Iraq by providing them with body 
armor, vehicle armor, and other personal support equipment, as well as 
for the construction and maintenance of our Navy vessels, which will 
preserve jobs.
  The CBC understands that providing homeland security requires 
appropriate funding to meet the many pressing

[[Page 5109]]

needs in homeland security; and, therefore, we have substantial funding 
for port security grants and rail security grants as well as funding 
for first responders, Federal air marshals and border patrol agents.
  The remainder of these funds are used to restore cuts in veterans' 
programs and benefits. The CBC understands that today's soldiers are 
tomorrow's veterans who deserve our respect and sacrifices, not just in 
word but in deed and in budget. Thus, the alternative budget makes 
critical increases in veterans' programs and benefits, a substantial 
portion of which is health care.
  It also supports funding for long-term care initiatives, medical and 
prosthetic research, and mental health care, among others. We believe 
that the sum of these initiatives will make us more secure as a Nation.
  The CBC is committed to reducing disparities in all of America's 
communities. At the same time, our budget recognizes that we cannot 
place the burden on our children and grandchildren. A top priority of 
the CBC is to address the exploding deficit problem, and that is why 
our budget reduces the deficit by $167 billion and saves $27 billion in 
interest payments compared to the House majority's budget.
  Members of the CBC have worked tirelessly to create a budget that is 
fiscally responsible, supports our troops and recognizes the need of 
American individuals and American communities around the country. We 
believe this is a sound budget that will reduce disparities in 
America's communities and promote and protect the best that America and 
Americans have to offer.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) 
and his colleagues for bringing forth an alternative budget. We know 
how difficult it is to put together a budget of this magnitude. As the 
gentleman said, this is a substitute budget, a true alternative budget 
to what was passed out of the committee. It highlights the differences 
between the Democrats' strategy and the Republican budgeting strategy. 
The Democrats seem to love spending increases and tax increases, and 
that is exactly what this alternative budget does.
  It increases spending compared to the committee budget that is on the 
floor. It increases spending by $32.5 billion in budget authority and 
also $18.9 billion increased spending in the year 2006. That is just in 
1 year. It also increases spending by $173 billion in budget authority 
over 5 years and $149 billion in outlays in the next 5 years. It also 
massively increases taxes by $35.1 billion in fiscal year 2006 alone 
and $169 billion over the next 5 years as opposed to the budget that 
was passed by the Committee on the Budget.
  Again, these tax increases are above and beyond, on top of enormous 
spending increases. But that is not the only problem that we have with 
this budget alternative. It also decreases defense spending. Again, 
while the Nation is at war, this alternative budget cuts defense 
spending by $10.7 billion in budget authority and $7 billion in outlays 
just in fiscal year 2006. Again, during fiscal years 2006 through 2010, 
this alternative budget would reduce defense spending by $149.5 billion 
in budget authority and $129 billion in outlays. So we have very clear 
differences that have been illustrated by these two budgets.
  Once again, I commend the gentleman for doing the hard work and 
putting an alternative budget together that is being discussed right 
now. Again these two budgets obviously highlight the difference. This 
budget that they are proposing increases taxes and cuts spending on 
defense in a time of war.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a member of the Committee on the 
Budget who has done an incredible job and shown incredible leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  First, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for 
offering a budget alternative. I know that the gentleman and his staff, 
along with the other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, worked 
very hard to put this budget together. Working on the Committee on the 
Budget this year, I realize how difficult it is to get agreement on the 
type of budget we need. Even to get a small group of people to agree on 
a budget is very difficult, so I commend the chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus for putting this together and I certainly 
respect what the gentleman has done.
  But on so many issues we have disagreement on the content of the 
budget. First, I do not think we need to raise taxes at a time when our 
economy is trying to get its footing back. And at a time of war, we 
need to fully fund defense and homeland security. We have so many needs 
in this country that we have to fund and so many priorities that we 
must fund. I think our budget that we produced out of the Committee on 
the Budget is well balanced. I think it is appropriate for the time we 
are living, the time of war, the time of very strong homeland security 
needs, and we need to properly fund those items, which I believe our 
House budget that we produced out of the Committee on the Budget does.
  So I am very proud of the work that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) has done to get a balanced approach for our budgeting.
  I would like to talk more about the qualities of our House budget 
that we have on the floor today. I think that is why we need to pass 
that budget unamended. First, our House budget fully funds the defense 
budget request of our President. There is a 4.8 percent increase, which 
totals $419 billion in defense spending, and a net increase of 2.3 
percent in nonmilitary appropriated accounts for homeland security, 
including $32.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security.
  But furthermore, I think it is important that we talk about what it 
does for veterans. With veterans I have a chart here today discussing, 
showing our increase in veterans programs and the spending we have 
increased in veterans programs. There is a rapid increase in veterans 
spending especially during this time of war. We are funding veterans 
programs appropriately in this Congress. We are funding more veterans 
health care programs. We are doing more for those serving to defend our 
country. The current House budget we have will increase veterans 
program spending to $67 billion. I think that is a move in the right 
direction.
  Furthermore, spending per veteran has increased to $2,700 per 
veteran. I think it is appropriate to notice the rapid rise in veterans 
spending. So we are funding priorities. This budget, although 
restraining nondefense, non-homeland security discretionary spending, 
and taking on mandatory government programs and finding savings, 
although slight, we are finding savings in those programs that will 
enable us to keep continuing to cut taxes and enable us to avoid 
raising taxes at the same time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) for offering this budget alternative. I respect what the 
gentleman is trying to do, but we have different ways of achieving the 
same result of funding the priorities and helping the American people.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for their kind words. If you 
listened to them, it would make it sound like we have the same budget, 
but I want to assure you and our colleagues that that is not the case. 
And I want to assure you that by the end of this debate, you are going 
to know what the differences are.
  We set out at the beginning of this Congress to set an agenda for the 
Congressional Black Caucus. Our agenda is about closing disparities 
that exist between African American citizens and other citizens in this 
country and have persisted over time. They involve closing the 
achievement and opportunity

[[Page 5110]]

gaps in education, closing the gaps in health care for every American, 
closing the gaps in employment and economic security in wealth and 
business opportunity in our country, closing the gaps that continue to 
exist in our justice system, closing the gaps that continue to exist in 
retirement security for our citizens, and closing the inequities that 
have persisted throughout our history in foreign policy.
  Is it true that we have a different set of priorities? You bet we do. 
To close these disparities, we have set a different course, and we 
decided that it was more important to devote resources to closing these 
gaps and closing these disparities than it was to give a tax cut to 
people who make above $200,000 a year. We decided that these priorities 
were more important than continuing to fund a ballistic missile defense 
program that has already failed every single test that it has 
undergone. We believe that the education of our children is more 
important than tax cuts for people over $200,000.
  I am not here to make any excuses about that. I want every Member of 
this Congress to understand that that is a choice that we have made and 
that is a choice that we are calling on this Congress to make. The 
people in my district who make over $200,000 a year have told me that 
they would rather educate our children and fully fund No Child Left 
Behind than they would have a tax cut. So this is a question of what 
your priorities are, no ifs, ands, buts about it. That is what you will 
be voting on today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 
seconds.
  There are differences in the two budgets. The budget that we passed 
out of committee funds our essential services without raising taxes, 
without cutting defense, without hurting our economy. Unfortunately, 
this proposed alternative raises taxes and thoroughly cuts defense 
suspending in a time of war.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott). Their budget and our budget really is the compassionate budget 
that is fiscally responsible.
  I have comments from the American Legion, from the national 
legislative director of AMVETS, from the national legislative director 
of the Disabled American Veterans, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I 
just want to paraphrase what they said:
  We think cutting veterans benefits, talking about the majority 
budget, is, and I paraphrase, unacceptable, especially at a time when 
American soldiers, sons and daughters, are being wounded and killed 
every day in Iraq.
  In addition, it appears that this pattern of shortchanging veterans 
medical care continues in the 109th Congress. American veterans and 
their families deserve better.
  Let me just give a few examples of how we strengthen one national 
defense. I will put all of it in the Record; but clearly in this House, 
in closing, only the big dogs eat in this House.
  I rise strongly to support the Congressional Black Caucus Budget. We 
are truly the conscience of this Congress.
  This budget represents true compassion with fiscal responsibility. It 
includes increases in programs that the American people believe in and 
that the Republicans just give lip service to. Our budget includes 
increased funding for: education programs, school construction, job 
creation programs, child nutrition programs, community health centers, 
and Amtrak, which 800,000 American's use to get to work, and whose 
budget got Zeroed out by this foolish Administration.
  And unlike the Republican's, it doesn't balance the budget on the 
backs of the veterans, the homeless, seniors, and the poor.
  In the Republican's House, the Big Dogs Eat first, and everyone else 
has to get in line.
  Do the right thing for the American people. Support the Congressional 
Black Caucus Budget.
  I would like to thank Mr. Watt and Mr. Scott for their hard work on 
putting the CBC alternative budget together.
  If we do not take care of our veterans now, we will not have the 
boots on the ground in the future to respond to any attack against us 
or our allies.
  This budget straightens our priorities to include both defending our 
country and the freedom it cherishes and giving our veterans the chance 
they need to succeed once they leave the service.

       All of the funds reduced from Ballistic Missile Defense are 
     reallocated within various functions to provide for 
     additional support for the troops in Iraq and other defense 
     items necessary to maintain our military strength and jobs 
     ($1.1 billion), homeland security needs ($2.05 billion), and 
     veterans programs and benefits ($4.65 billion). All 
     calculations are for changes above/below proposed Fiscal Year 
     2006 levels included in the Republican budget.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense:
Body armor, personal support equipment, and     $75 million.
 other protective gear for troops, and vehicle
 armor.
Ammunition for Marine Corps...................  $10 million.
Small Arms for Army...........................  $10 million.
Building/Maintenance of Navy ships............  $1 billion.
To study instances of waste, fraud and abuse    $5 million.
 within DoD business processes and implement
 specific GAO recommendations for reform.
Veterans: +$4.65 billion
Veterans Health Care..........................  $1 billion.
Survivor Benefit Plan.........................  $100 million.
Disabled Veterans Tax [``concurrent receipt'']  $2.5 billion.
Fund long-term care initiatives for veterans..  $400 million.
Remove proposed $250 enrollment fee on          $300 million.
 Priority 7&8 veterans.
Remove proposed increases in co-payments for    $150 million.
 Priority 7&8 veterans.
Prosthetic needs for veterans.................  $100 million.
VA Medical and Prosthetic Research............  $50 million.
Mental Health Care for Veterans...............  $50 million.
Allowances (all for purposes of Homeland
 Security): +$2.05 billion
Rail Security.................................  $100 million.
Port Security, including air cargo screening,   $500 million.
 preventing nuclear/radiological weapons in
 cargo containers, research and development,
 and grants.
Centers for Disease Control...................  $250 million.
First Responders..............................  $900 million.
Interoperable communications systems for first  $85 million.
 responders.
Federal air marshals..........................  $65 million.
Internal Customs Enforcement/Border Patrol      $150 million.
 Agents.
      Total Defense Funds Used, All of Which    $7.8 billion.
       Are Reallocated to Defense, Homeland
       Security Needs, and Veterans Programs
       and Benefits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5111]]


                                  ____
                                          The American Legion,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2005.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Chairman, Committee on Budget, House of Representatives, 
         Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The American Legion is deeply troubled 
     with and cannot support your Committee's proposed budget 
     resolution, H. Con. Res. 95, with regard to funding for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), especially the 
     reconciliation instructions targeted at earned Veterans' 
     benefits. Reducing mandatory appropriations for veterans' 
     disability compensation, pensions, and educational benefits 
     at a time of war is inconsistent with the thanks of a 
     grateful Nation.
       The American Legion believes VA's own admission that the 
     cost of doing business increases annually about 13-14 percent 
     because of Federal pay increases and inflation in the health 
     care arena. The President's budget request is ``scrubbed'' by 
     the Office of Management and Budget, so VA's true fiscal 
     requirements to meet the health care needs of America's 
     veterans are somewhat skewed. During the 108th Congress, 
     former VA Secretary Principi reported to your colleagues that 
     The FY 2005 proposed budget was $1.2 billion short of what he 
     had actually requested. It appears this pattern of 
     shortchanging VA medical care continues in the 109th 
     Congress. America's veterans and their families deserve 
     better.
       The American Legion recognizes and appreciates the Bradley 
     Amendment adopted by the Committee, but believes it falls 
     well short of the total funding needed in VA medical care. 
     Unfortunately, the Committee rejected the Edwards Amendment 
     that would have provided VA with adequate resources to 
     maintain current services.
       The American Legion would encourage adoption of one of the 
     amendments to be offered by Representatives Spratt or Obey 
     with regard to increasing VA funding. Clearly, both of these 
     amendments are in the best interest of veterans and their 
     families. Without adoption of one of these two amendments, 
     The American Legion cannot support this budget resolution.
       The American Legion appreciates your leadership and the 
     hard work of your colleagues on behalf of America's veterans 
     and their families.
       Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas P. Cadmus,
     National Commander.
                                  ____



                                       The Independent Budget,

                                                   March 17, 2005.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Chairman, House Budget Committee, Cannon House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Nussle: As you know, the President's 
     fiscal year 2006 budget would provide an appropriation for 
     veterans' medical care that is less than one-half of one 
     percent above the FY 2005 appropriation. Because this amount 
     would not begin to cover employee wage increases and other 
     inflationary costs, it amounts to a substantial cut in 
     funding and thus would unavoidably result in a reduction of 
     critical medical care services for our Nation's sick and 
     disabled veterans. Although we appreciate the adoption of the 
     Bradley amendment which added $229 million to the President's 
     recommendation for veterans' medical care, this is still 
     grossly inadequate.
       In addition, we understand that H. Con. Res. 95 includes 
     instructions to cut spending on mandatory veterans' programs, 
     such as disability compensation, by $798 million. We think 
     cutting veterans' benefit programs is unconscionable, 
     especially at a time when America's son and daughters are 
     being wounded and killed every day in Iraq.
       The four major veterans organizations of The Independent 
     Budget, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 
     United States, therefore strongly urge support for amendments 
     offered by Representatives Spratt and Obey to increase 
     funding for veterans' programs. Passage of these amendments 
     is crucial if the VA is to maintain an adequate level of 
     health care and other services.
           Sincerely,
     Rick Jones,
       National Legislative Director, AMVETS.
     Richard B. Fuller,
       National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America.
     Joseph A. Violante,
       National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans.
     Dennis Cullinan,
       National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of 
     the United States.

  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I do want to respond to only the big dogs 
eat in this House. I am a small dog, and I think I am doing just fine.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McHENRY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. It is not you; it is your policy. When 
I say ``big dog,'' I am talking about those huge tax cuts to the rich 
while we cut veterans programs, programs for health care, programs for 
the people that need it the most.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is an interesting 
chart on the rapid increase in veterans spending per veteran. I think 
this is very important. We are spending $2,773 per veteran. We are 
fully funding our veterans' needs. That is a priority of this Congress. 
As a small fellow, I must admit, I do think it is important that we 
keep our taxes low so that we can create economic growth and 
development which will help us fully fund our programs going forward. A 
strong economy is what is going to move our Nation forward, not tax 
increases.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt), for his steadfast support of the development of 
this CBC budget alternative and also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for his leadership. I appreciate and applaud their steady stream 
of ideas and positions on issues we all care about.
  This Republican budget proposal clearly ignores the needs of my State 
and all working Americans. The $2.57 trillion budget for fiscal year 
2006 that President Bush laid before Congress is more out of touch than 
all the rest that he has submitted. It fails to include huge costs that 
taxpayers will have to bear, and its priorities do not match the needs 
of millions of people. It is, in short, a budget in need of a thorough 
congressional overhaul.
  The level of funding proposed in the President's budget for research 
and development, especially basic research, is far from adequate. I 
believe that Federal investments in science and technology make sense. 
Americans have funded groundbreaking research into disease prevention 
and amazing new medical breakthroughs, cutting-edge business 
technology, energy efficiency and educational tools that help our 
children learn in new ways. But in this budget, funding for the 
National Science Foundation would struggle to keep up with inflation 
and programs at most other major agencies are cut.
  There is a direct connection between investments in research and 
development today and economic prosperity and world leadership 
tomorrow. That is why the CBC budget plan would continue to invest in 
the National Science Foundation, in NASA, research at schools and 
universities and new energy technologies to give business consumers 
more affordable, cleaner energy. Just this week, EPA issued a statement 
that really rolls us back in protecting our air. We have no clean air 
in Texas. I do not know about anyplace else.
  As lawmakers, we do have the responsibility to ensure that all 
Americans, including minorities, are able to move ahead to achieve the 
American Dream. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness meant all 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, it is up to the Congress to inject a dose of realism 
into this budget debate. Only then will the country get a budget that 
makes sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, Mr. Watt, for his steadfast support of the development of this 
CBC budget alternate. I also want to thank Mr. Scott for his 
leadership. I appreciate and applaud their steady stream of ideas and 
positions on issues we all care about. I also would like to thank all 
of the members of the CBC and their staff for their help in completing 
this very worthwhile project.
  The Republican budget proposal clearly ignores the needs of Texas and 
of all working Americans. The $2.57 trillion budget for fiscal 2006 
that President Bush laid before Congress is more out of touch than 
most. It fails to include huge costs that taxpayers will have to bear, 
and its priorities don't match the needs of millions of people. It is, 
in short, a

[[Page 5112]]

budget in need of a thorough congressional overhaul.
  Mr. Chairman, the level of funding proposed in the President's budget 
for research and development, especially basic research, is far from 
adequate. I believe that federal investments in science and technology 
make sense. Americans have funded groundbreaking research into disease 
prevention and amazing new medical breakthroughs, cutting-edge business 
technology, energy efficiency, and educational tools that help our 
children learn in new ways. But in this budget package, funding for the 
National Science Foundation (NSF) would struggle to keep up with 
inflation, and programmes at most other major agencies are cut.
  Bush's science and technology budget would drop from an estimated 
$61.7 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $60.8 billion in 2006. The science 
and technology includes programs such as space exploration, renewable 
energy, and agricultural research, as well as technology-related 
research and development at the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST).
  There is a direct connection between investments in research and 
development today, and economic prosperity and world leadership 
tomorrow. That's why CBC budget plan would continue to invest in the 
National Science Foundation, NASA, research at schools and 
universities; and new energy technologies to give business and 
consumers more affordable, cleaner energy.
  As lawmakers, we have the responsibility to ensure that all 
Americans, including minorities, are able to move ahead to achieve the 
American dream: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  Mr. Chairman, it is up to Congress to inject a dose of realism into 
the budget debate. Only then will the country get a budget that makes 
sense.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I am full of charts today, my friends.
  I do want to address our funding for health and for research. Under a 
Republican-controlled Congress, we have doubled funding for NIH, the 
National Institutes of Health. I think it is important to note what we 
are doing in health research as an American government, and the 
American people need to know that we are fully funding these programs 
to look at innovative ways to solve pressing medical issues in our 
country. We have doubled the funding for NIH over the last 6 years.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, more needs to be done to address 
the ongoing global challenges of health, poverty, disease, and 
disasters so that we can end the inequities in foreign policy. 
Therefore, the CBC budget increases funding for these core development 
accounts with the overall goals of reducing poverty disparities and 
improving quality of life.
  There is $3.7 billion in the CBC budget for global AIDS, which is 
$500 million more than the President's budget. That is an increase of 
$900 million from last year and will support prevention, care and 
treatment for thousands more people.
  Foreign aid to Africa and the Caribbean is increased by $250 million 
in the Congressional Black Caucus budget to allow developing countries 
to participate in the global economy. These funds support strategic 
priorities in the Caribbean region, improve good governance and reduce 
corruption, increase economic growth and free trade and reduce 
narcotics trafficking.
  Public health and preventable illness initiatives is increased by 
$250 million in the CBC budget. More than one-third of the children in 
Africa are malnourished. In the last 10 years, approximately 2 million 
children have been killed in armed conflicts.


                                 africa

  Overall disparity--Nearly 1.3 billion people around the world live in 
poverty and do not have safe drinking water; more than one-third of the 
world's children are malnourished; within the last ten years, 
approximately two million children have been killed in armed conflicts, 
many after being forced to be child soldiers; many poor countries spend 
30%-40% of their annual budgets on repaying their foreign-held debt 
(often more than they spend on health and education combined); and 
horrific conditions can lead individuals to become more disaffected and 
susceptible to recruitment by terrorist organizations.


      eradicating hunger, poverty, and diseases must be a priority

  HIV/AIDS Solution--AIDS is a global humanitarian disaster that 
demands robust leadership from the United States. According to the need 
based numbers advanced by UNAIDS, The Stop TB Partnership, and Roll 
back Malaria, we believe the US should provide $6.7 billion next year. 
And at least $1.5 billion in funding this year for the Global Fund to 
operate efficiently and effectively.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  Again, what we have not heard from the sponsors of this amendment is 
part of what is in their amendment. Again, their amendment has massive 
increases in spending. It also has massive tax increases on the 
American people. And it also has massive reductions in defense spending 
in a time of war. Those are huge differences. I just want to make sure 
that everybody understands what the differences are.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the CBC budget is sane, 
rational, logical, serious. It recognizes the tremendous need that 
exists in our country to assist those 2 million people who are 
currently in jails and prisons and the 650,000 who return home every 
year. Therefore, it increases juvenile justice programs by $300 
million, $100 million for the weed and seed drug elimination program, 
and $300 million for prisoner reentry programs, and it does not raise 
taxes. It rolls back the tax breaks that were given in 2001 and 2003 to 
those individuals with adjusted gross incomes of more than $200,000. 
People in my community say, provide the services, don't give to the 
rich.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) mentioned the fact 
that our budget does not increase taxes and the alternative budget that 
we are discussing today does increase taxes.
  Does the gentleman know how many jobs are created because of this 
Republican Congress cutting taxes in the last year?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I think I may have a chart on that.
  Payroll jobs have rebounded because of tax cuts. With a weakness of 
the economy going into the Bush administration from the Clinton years 
and with the advent of 9/11, we had a weakening of the economy.

                              {time}  1230

  But once the tax cuts took hold, we have rebounded. We have got over 
3 million jobs because of this.
  Beyond that, there has been reference to the fact that tax cuts have 
created the deficit. That is not true. Actually, that is borne out with 
statistical proof here. The largest cause of deficits between 2001 and 
2004 was the economy. And the best way to address the economy and get 
the economy to rebound is by cutting taxes, spurring growth, reducing 
regulations, empowering small businesses and businesses all across the 
country to create more jobs, to increase earnings.
  So what we see here, the largest cause, 49 percent of the cause of 
the deficit, was the economy. And because of that, we have been able to 
rebound. Because of the tax cuts and because of the rebound in the 
economy, we are reducing the deficit. We are taking on this, and we are 
going to further cut taxes in order to keep spurring the economy.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus's budget that is being presented here today. 
This budget is more responsible certainly than the President's budget, 
certainly than the Republican budget, and it has taken into 
consideration the real needs of the people of this country. I want to 
talk a little bit about CDBG; that is, the Community Development Block 
grant.

[[Page 5113]]

  By formula, every city, town, State in America receives funds from 
this Community Development Block Grant program. This money is block 
granted to these entities in order to assist these cities with 
everything from infrastructure development, assistance with housing so 
that people can get into homes, being assisted with down payments, with 
rental assistance; with 501(c)(3)s, nonprofit organizations, that are 
providing services for at-risk youth, for seniors, for the kinds of 
programs that these cities and towns could never fund without this 
block grant.
  In many ways this money that is going to the cities is the last of 
the moneys to deal with poverty, to deal with the lack of resources 
because of the inability of these cities and towns to be able to raise 
the kind of revenue that could help them with the very basic needs of 
their cities.
  This President decided to cut this particular block grant by 35 
percent. I think that amounts to about $1.9 billion. The good thing 
about what this President has done is he has brought together from both 
sides of the aisle Representatives who know the value of this program 
and who are going to work together and support the kind of funding that 
has been put back into this budget by the CBC budget. The CBC funds 
CDBG to the 2005 level, and that is the way it should be.
  I would urge support for the Congressional Black Caucus's very 
thoughtful and well developed budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the CBC substitute budget. 
The CBC budget rejects the failed budget policies of the Bush 
Administration and would return us to a policy of investing in 
education, job training, housing, veterans and community development 
programs that millions of people depend on. It would reduce the deficit 
and restore fiscal responsibility to a budget process that has run 
amuck.
  Mr. Chairman, because the CBC believes that education is the greatest 
legacy that we can provide to our children, the CBC's budget fully 
funds No Child Left Behind. We also provide an additional $2.5 billion 
for school construction and an additional $450 million for Pell Grants 
which will help thousands more students attend college. We also 
increase funding for Head Start by $2 billion over the Republican 
budget so that we can ensure that more low-income children are properly 
prepared to enter the first grade.
  The CBC budget substitute recognizes the vital role that the 
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program plays in improving our 
communities. The Republican budget proposes to cut CDBG by at least 
$800 million and the cuts could end up as high as the $1.9 billion cut 
proposed by the President. These cuts to the CDBG program will leave a 
huge hole in the budgets of our local governments, a hole they cannot 
and will not be able to fill with their own resources.
  The CBC budget substitute rejects these cuts, and instead provides an 
increase of $1.2 billion more than the Republican budget for CDBG.
  We also reject the $286 million in cuts proposed for the Hope VI 
program and instead provide $500 million for Hope VI so that it may 
continue its important role in rehabilitating our nation's public 
housing. The CBC budget also provides an additional $880 million for 
Section 8 Housing Programs, preserving and expanding this vital safety 
net program for millions of people.
  Mr. Chairman, the CBC substitute is a strong and compassionate budget 
that meets the needs of the American people. I urge my colleagues to 
support it and to reject the Republican budget.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  The House budget resolution addresses CDBGs. As a matter of fact, it 
adds $1.1 billion aimed specifically at that. The difference between 
our budget, though, and this proposed amendment is our budget does not 
raise taxes, does not reduce defense spending in a time of war.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mario Diaz-Balart) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to control that time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin 
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Congressional Black Caucus's alternative budget.
  Among the critical investments it makes are those in health. Mr. 
Chairman, without these albeit moderate increases, we would do nothing 
to reduce the almost 100,000 premature preventable deaths that will 
occur in the African American community this year and every year 
because of our failure to act.
  It is important to note that while the increases in the CBC budget 
apply specifically to programs that improve minority health, many 
studies have demonstrated that our lack of access, our poor health, and 
the failure of this country to focus on prevention in our communities 
contribute greatly to escalating health care costs and adversely 
impacts the quality of health care for everyone.
  So the CBC budget through improving the health of African Americans 
and other people of color improves health and the quality of life for 
all Americans. And with the additional $167 billion reduction in our 
national deficit it provides, this is a budget that everyone can and 
should vote for.
  I proudly applaud the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and this committee for this 
outstanding budget.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank both our chairman 
as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for their leadership 
on this most important effort.
  I rise to support the CBC budget, the only budget in this Congress at 
this time that invests in America's families.
  There are three things wrong with America and why we are not doing 
well. The permanent tax cuts cost $1.2 trillion. On the war in Iraq we 
have spent $300 billion, and the deficit is blooming.
  Our CBC budget reduces the deficit. Our CBC budget invests in 
defense, homeland security, and the veterans at the same numbers that 
were given to this House by the President.
  We must support the CBC budget. Americans have to be outraged that we 
are not investing in their families and their children and their health 
care. I hope that we will do right. The CBC budget must be adopted.

    Support the Congressional Black Caucus Fiscal Year 2006 Budget 
                               Substitute

       The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) fiscal year 2006 
     budget substitute focuses on the CBC's Agenda (Closing 
     Disparities in America's Communities) and restoring fiscal 
     responsibility to the federal budget process. The disparities 
     that continue to exist in our society in education, health 
     care, economic opportunity, justice, retirement security and 
     foreign policy are addressed in the CBC budget. In addition, 
     our budget focuses on strengthening our efforts at the 
     Department of Homeland Security, meeting some of the critical 
     needs of our troops and improving services to our veterans. 
     And, while making these important investments in our 
     country's future, our budget places a high priority on 
     reducing the record federal budget deficit.
       The CBC budget uses the Republican budget as the base 
     budget and makes the following adjustments:


                                domestic

       It includes a reduction in the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 
     for an individual's adjusted gross income that exceeds 
     $200,000; furthermore, it does not adopt the new Republican 
     tax cuts.
       Most of the revenue raised in the CBC budget is used to 
     address disparities in America's communities; a substantial 
     portion is reserved to reduce the deficit.

[[Page 5114]]




                                military

       Ballistic Missile Defense spending is reduced by $7.8 
     billion, leaving $1 billion for research and development.
       All of these funds are spent on other defense items to 
     support our troops, homeland security needs, and veterans 
     programs and benefits.
       The total for defense, homeland security and veterans is 
     equal to the Republican budget.


                              bottom line

       The CBC budget addresses critical domestic challenges, and 
     supports our troops.
       The CBC budget reduces the deficit by $167 billion compared 
     to the House majority's budget over the next five years; this 
     fiscal responsibility is rewarded by a reduction of $27 
     billion in interest payments compared to the House majority's 
     budget.
       The CBC budget focuses on closing disparities that exist in 
     our society and investing in America's future. We hope you 
     will join us in supporting these efforts by supporting the 
     CBC budget substitute.
                                  ____


           Summary of Fiscal Year 2006 CBC Alternative Budget

       Total general revenue: $32.4 billion.
       Amount applied to deficit reduction: $3.9 billion.


                  Function 150--International Affairs

       The United States is facing unprecedented challenges to our 
     national security and broader national interests. Although 
     there is an overall increase in the President's request for 
     international assistance for FY 06, more needs to be done to 
     address the ongoing global challenges of health, poverty, 
     disease, and disasters. Therefore, the CBC budget increases 
     funding for these core development accounts with the overall 
     goals of reducing poverty disparities and improving quality 
     of life. +$1 billion.


          Function 250--General Science, Space, and Technology

       The CBC supports the research and development efforts of 
     NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST), and the 
     Department of Energy. In addition to research and 
     development, the CBC supports additional safety measures for 
     the Space Shuttle program. +$500 million.


            Function 300--Natural Resources and Environment

       The CBC is concerned about adequate funding for the 
     preservation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 
     The alternative budget supports additional efforts to protect 
     the historical heritage and important cultural role of HBCUs 
     in the United States. +$50 million.


                       Function 350--Agriculture

       The CBC alternative budget supports farms owned by African-
     Americans and other minorities. The CBC realizes that these 
     farmers continue to depend on the Department of Agriculture's 
     loan and grant programs and has allocated funding to modify 
     cuts in agriculture programs that affect minorities. The 
     Caucus's priorities also include increasing funding for 
     expanding food and nutrition education programs and for the 
     USDA Office of Civil Rights. +$300 million.


               Function 370--Commerce and Housing Credit

       The CBC alternative budget works towards eliminating the 
     housing and small business disparities created by the 
     President's FY06 budget. The alternative budget allocates 
     funding to the Small Business Administration and the 
     Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), and provides 
     additional funding for adult training and dislocated workers 
     programs. By supporting these programs, the CBC is working to 
     close the existing economic disparities in the U.S. and to 
     help entrepreneurs realize the American dream. +$1 billion.


                      Function 400--Transportation

       The CBC believes that it is important to provide support 
     for Amtrak. The Caucus is also determined to ease the 
     transportation disparities in the United States by funding 
     public transportation. +$150 million.


            Function 450--Community and Regional Development

       The CBC understands that federal support for community and 
     regional development helps promote growth in economically 
     distressed urban and rural communities. To remedy these 
     economic disparities, the CBC would like to ensure that the 
     Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program will 
     continue to improve housing conditions in low to moderate 
     income neighborhoods. +$1.5 billion.


                  Function 500--Education and Training

        The CBC alternative budget represents a comprehensive 
     approach to education and training by closing the achievement 
     and opportunity gaps in education. While the Administration 
     proposes eliminating 48 programs ($4.3 billion cost), the CBC 
     budget dramatically increases funding for education and 
     training programs by $23.9 billion over the Republican 
     budget. It provides funds for school construction, fully 
     funds No Child Left Behind, and provides critical funding for 
     Head Start, GEAR-UP, TRIO and IDEA. For those in college, the 
     CBC budget raises the maximum amount of Pell Grants. In 
     addition, the CBC budget funds the Perkins Loan Programs as 
     well as job training, adult education, and vocational 
     education programs that are critical in today's global 
     economy. +$23.9 billion.


                          Function 550--Health

       The CBC alternative budget makes eliminating health care 
     disparities a top priority by funding health care programs 
     such as Community Health Centers. +$1 billion.


                     Function 600--Income Security

       Programs that serve children and families in times of need 
     are essential to fixing the disparities that exist in the 
     U.S. The CBC alternative budget supports additional funding 
     for programs such as Hope VI, Section 8 Housing, housing for 
     the disabled and the elderly, Low Income Home Energy 
     Assistance and Child Nutrition. +$2 billion.


                Function 750--Administration of Justice

       The CBC is concerned about the proposed cuts that affect 
     local law enforcement personnel and programs. The alternative 
     budget will help fix these budget disparities and fund the 
     programs that keep our streets and neighborhoods safe. 
     Moreover, the CBC understands the importance of providing 
     adequate funding to Juvenile Justice programs that promote 
     prevention and intervention. These programs support effective 
     local efforts that reduce crime and delinquency, save money, 
     and save lives. +$1 billion.
       Total Defense funds used, all of which are reallocated to 
     Defense ($1.1 B), Homeland Security needs ($2.05 B), and 
     veterans programs and benefits ($4.65 B): $7.8 billion.


                     Function 050--National Defense

       It is a priority of the CBC to provide American soldiers 
     with the equipment necessary to return home from Iraq in a 
     safe, quick, and successful manner. Therefore, the CBC budget 
     alternative reallocates $1.1 billion within defense. These 
     funds are used to protect our troops with body armor, 
     personal gear, small arms and ammunition, as well as vehicle 
     armor; for the construction and maintenance of Navy vessels 
     in order to maintain the U.S. Naval fleet and jobs associated 
     with it; and for other defense purposes to maintain our 
     military strength. -$6.7 billion.


                         Function 700--Veterans

       The CBC understands that today's soldiers are tomorrow's 
     veterans who deserve our respect for the sacrifices they 
     made. Thus, the CBC alternative budget aims to make critical 
     increases in veterans programs, especially funding for 
     veterans health care, as well as long-term care initiatives, 
     VA medical and prosthetic research, and mental health care. 
     +4.65 billion.


    Function 920--Allowances (all for purposes of Homeland Security)

       The CBC understands that providing homeland security 
     requires appropriate funding to meet the many pressing 
     homeland security needs that face our nation. The alternative 
     budget therefore devotes additional resources for guarding 
     against terrorist attacks through our rails and ports, 
     including cargo screening that prevents nuclear or 
     radiological weapons from entering the U.S. It also supports 
     essential funding for the Centers for Disease Control to help 
     us prepare for a possible biological attack. Moreover, 
     America depends on its first responders, federal air 
     marshals, and boarder patrol agents; the CBC alternative 
     budget ensures that they--and our collective homeland 
     security effort--receive the resources that are urgently 
     needed to protect the citizens of the United States. +$2.05 
     billion.

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank again the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from North Carolina, chairman of 
our Congressional Black Caucus, for their stellar leadership in 
spearheading this responsible budget. It should not be an alternative. 
This is the budget we should be voting on.
  The Republican budget is fiscally reckless and morally irresponsible. 
The CBC budget, if we think about it, really is a faith-based budget. 
The CBC budget is not only fiscally responsible, but it is also morally 
responsible.
  The Republican budget fails to live up to any standard of morality 
that speaks to the least of these. On the other hand, the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget acknowledges that in order to have a strong 
America, we must have all Americans who are not vulnerable. Our people 
cannot be desperate if, in fact, we want a strong America.
  The Republican budget cuts housing, housing for the disabled by 50 
percent. Where is the morality in that? That is turning our backs on 
the disabled. The CBC budget not only restores these cuts but adds $120 
million for housing the disabled.
  The Republican budget is an immoral budget, if one asks me. Vote for 
the

[[Page 5115]]

CBC budget because it is a faith-based budget that takes care of the 
least of these.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the Dean of the CBC.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus has 
carefully considered its responsibility here, and they have asked me to 
point out a couple of things.
  In the Justice Department we need to put more money into three 
programs that were cut: First, the programs that investigate gang-
related crimes; secondly, the problems of juvenile delinquency; and, 
third, prison reentry. These are incredibly important.
  And I just want to add that this budget that we are trying to replace 
ours with is one of the most mean-spirited documents that I have 
witnessed. Over 150 domestic program cuts. The $81 billion for Iraq was 
not even included in this budget, as if it was a supplemental 
consideration.
  So I ask the Members to join with us and let us have a great number 
of people supporting the CBC budget this year.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney), and I would like to wish her a happy birthday 
today. She thought I did not know that.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I will not tell 
my colleagues which birthday it is.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the CBC budget and against the 
priorities of the Republican budget.
  The Republican budget does nothing to decrease the racial disparities 
that exist in our country. In fact, it exacerbates them. Seventy-six 
years to close the college graduation gap, 581 years to close the 
wealth gap, 1,664 years to close the homeownership gap.
  But when Republicans talk about growth, it is clear that too many 
American communities are just not included. It is also clear that the 
Republicans do not see our constituents because if they did, they would 
not legislate public policy that hurts them.
  Even Alan Greenspan has decried the unsustainable income imbalances 
in our country. The Republicans continue to ignore him, us, and our 
constituents. It is a sad day when veterans, children, seniors, small 
business owners, rural Americans, and poor Americans have to take a 
back seat to the scions of industry and Wall Street.
  I support the CBC budget and reject the priorities of the Republican 
budget.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, again I want to commend the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for offering this alternative budget. I do 
commend him for his hard work and efforts on behalf of his 
constituents, which are my neighbors in North Carolina. I am very proud 
to have him as a neighbor. I am very proud of his leadership and the 
stature he brings back home to North Carolina.
  With that, we do have a disagreement on policy. His version of the 
budget increase taxes at a time when we are just now recovering from 
those tough days of the late 1990s and early 2000s when our economy was 
soft.
  I think it is important that we keep cutting taxes for years to come 
so that we can keep this economic growth going. And the best way to 
lift people up, the best way to give people an opportunity, to give 
them ownership, is by allowing them to keep more of their own money. In 
the last few years we have seen numerous people falling off the tax 
rolls because of tax cuts. We have seen strong job growth, new 
businesses being formed, greater homeownership in America. Across the 
board every group in America is increasing in homeownership. And I 
think it is important that we continue those policies to keep growth 
going while restraining government spending, cutting deficits, and 
funding national defense and homeland security.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, happy birthday to my 
colleague.
  Let me resoundingly support the Congressional Black Caucus' budget, 
and let me ask my colleagues what better budget to have than the one 
that saves $27.5 billion more in interest than the Republican budget? I 
cannot imagine that my good friend on the floor of the House would not 
welcome the opportunity of putting that interest into the needs of the 
American people.
  We need affordable housing. We can go to any city, any rural 
community, and not see people standing in line to access affordable 
housing. Section 8 vouchers, which allows affordable housing for 
families of four and five and six hard-working Americans, there are 
25,000 people on the list in Houston, Texas alone. Millions of people 
are still on the list because they do not have affordable housing.

                              {time}  1245

  Finally I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) on this budget because it 
also invests in homeland security. With all of the talk of the 
Republican budget, they do not fund immigration and customs officers. 
They do not fund border patrol officers to secure our borders and 
provide for internal security. The CBC budget does. The CBC budget puts 
$150 million in for Border and Customs needs. This is a strong budget 
for the American people. Vote for the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget. Save $27.5 billion in interest. I think you will like that in 
your pocket and in your savings account!
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer another choice to those Americans 
who are disheartened by the current budget proposal being offered by 
this Republican Congress. Today, we offer them the choice of accepting 
the Congressional Black Caucus's, CBC, alternative budget. Truly, it is 
the budget of hope and compromise; it is the budget that closes the 
disparities in America's communities. The CBC alternative budget 
provides both social and economic equality for Americans, instead of 
allowing the richest Americans to pay fewer taxes at the expense of 
vital programs needed by lower and middle class Americans. Surely, this 
administration and the Republican leadership in Congress will pay lip 
service to the needs of these Americans, but this budget does more. It 
demonstrates in writing that under our current budgetary situation it 
is possible to maintain necessary social programs while practicing true 
fiscal responsibility.
  The CBC alternative budget is particularly strong in its support of 
educational programs, the greatest key we possess to close disparities 
in our society. This administration and the majority in this Congress 
promised to leave no child behind, but clearly they have reneged on 
their promise. The Republican budget eliminates 48 education programs 
that receive $4.3 billion this year. These eliminations include wiping 
out $1.3 billion for all vocational education programs, $522 million 
for all education technology programs, and $29 million for all civic 
education programs. The Republican budget eliminates other large 
programs including the Even Start family literacy program, $225 
million, and state grants for safe and drug-free schools and 
communities, $437 million. In fact, the President's budget cuts 2006 
funding for the Department of Education by $1.3 billion below the 
amount needed to maintain purchasing power at the current level, and by 
$530 million below the 2005 enacted level of $56.6 billion. This is the 
first time since 1989 that an administration has submitted a budget 
that cuts the Department's funding.
  The CBC alternative budget in stark contrast provides a much needed 
boost of $23.9 billion to education and training, including $2.5 
billion for school construction. The CBC alternative fully funds the 
fiscal year 2006 authorization level for No Child Left Behind, NCLB and 
provides for an expansion of the Head Start program. In addition, the 
CBC alternative doubles federal funding for Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions; again closing the 
disparities often witnessed in higher education. In that regard the CBC 
alternative increases the Pell grant allotment for college students. 
Because as we all know, a mind, any mind, is a terrible thing to waste. 
Clearly, the CBC alternative emphasizes this ideal more than the 
Republican budget resolution.
  Few things are more important to Americans than their home and their 
communities. While

[[Page 5116]]

the President and this Republican Congress take steps to make it harder 
for average Americans to reach homeownership, the CBC alternative 
invests heavily in this vital sector. It funds home ownership 
initiatives that help families build real wealth. In the city of 
Houston alone we have 25,000 people waiting on a list to obtain 
affordable housing. These homes will provide them the stability and 
equity to build their lives and eventually achieve their own 
prosperity, we shame ourselves when we deny them the opportunity to do 
so. The CBC alternative also restores $1.122 billion for vital 
Community Block Grants which were gutted in the Republican budget 
resolution. Without the ability to build up our communities how can we 
change people's realities? Without community development we allow these 
disparities to continue unabated.
  The CBC alternative budget does not remove any money from the overall 
Defense and Homeland Security budget. Instead, it takes $7.7 billion 
out of the Ballistic Missile Defense Program, which has so far proven 
to be a failure and redirects the money to additional support for the 
troops in Iraq, homeland security needs, and veterans programs and 
benefits. Among the items of support for the troops in Iraq is $75 
million of body armor, personal support equipment, and other protective 
gear for troops, and vehicle armor; all of which we know the troops are 
in urgent need of. The CBC alternative provides an additional $2.05 
billion for Homeland Security including funds for improving rail and 
port security, which have always been high risk targets for attack. 
This alternative budget provides $4.65 billion for veterans funding, so 
that when our brave men and women return home from fighting the war on 
terror they will know that their nation is ready and willing to take 
care of them.
  The CBC alternative also funds the important sector of immigration. 
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 
Security, and Claims I worked with the CBC to get funding for $150 
million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, agents and border 
patrol agents, truly we are undermanned in this vital sector. In 
addition, as a member of the House Science Committee I worked with the 
CBC to fund an additional $500 million for general science, space, and 
development and support the research and development efforts of NASA, 
the National Science Foundation, NSF, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technologies, NIST, and the Department of Energy. In 
addition to research and development, the CBC alternative also supports 
additional safety measures for the Space Shuttle program, which should 
be at the forefront of NASA's efforts after the Columbia Space Shuttle 
tragedy. Space and Science represent yet another way to eliminate 
disparities through knowledge and discovery.
  This CBC alternative budget is proof positive that we can properly 
fund social programs while still paying down more of the national debt 
than the Republican budget. Again, I say that this budget represents 
hope instead of the despair we feel when looking at the Republican 
budget resolution. It is a hope for ending the disparities that 
continue to divide us and keep us to this day from achieving our full 
potential as a nation.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire of 
the gentleman from North Carolina how many speakers he has left.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the gentleman would give us 
a little bit more time.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire of 
the gentleman how many speakers he has.
  Mr. WATT. I have two speakers left.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. And how much time does he have 
left, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from North Carolina 
has 2 minutes.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I believe I have 2\1/2\ minutes, 
Mr. Chairman. Is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will, in a spirit 
of incredible generosity to the opposition, yield another half minute 
to the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina now has 2\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Florida now has 2 minutes.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) who prepared this budget, has his imprint on it 
and knows more about it than anybody.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina for yielding me this time. I want to make a couple of comments 
as we wrap up. One is the massive tax increase. What we did was started 
with the base budget, the Republican budget. On income we changed the 
revenue by rolling back the tax cuts to the level they were at in 2001 
for income over 200,000. If someone makes more than $200,000, they get 
all the income tax cuts up to the 200,000, but no tax cuts after 
200,000. Again, we spend $167 billion less deficit than the Republican 
budget, creating $27 billion less in interest payments.
  Now, we have heard all of this about massive cuts in defense. Let us 
be very clear. All of the numbers on defense are exactly the same 
numbers as the Republican budget, with one exception. We fund missile 
defense at $1 billion rather than $8.8 billion.
  If you look at defense, homeland security, and veterans, that total 
is the same because we use that money to fund defense, homeland 
security and veterans.
  Now, on defense, I hope the gentleman from Florida is working with 
the Virginia delegation in maintaining a 12-aircraft carrier fleet. 
This budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, has a billion 
dollars more in shipbuilding than the underlying budget. We have $75 
million more in shipbuilding than the underlying budget. We have $75 
million more in body armor. We have in homeland security, $500 million 
for port security; $100 million for rail security, veterans benefits.
  Those charts did not show what the present level of services would 
cost. It also did not show the fact that the Republican budget has co-
pays and deductibles that our budget does not have. We say we have $4 
billion more for veterans, over $1 billion more for shipbuilding, over 
$2 billion more for homeland security. So if you look at that as a 
group, we are more secure with the Congressional Black Caucus budget 
than the Republican budget.
  I would hope that we would adopt the budget. It saves money and makes 
us more secure.
  I include for the Record the fiscal year 2006 CBC alternative budget 
breakdown:

           Fiscal Year 2006 CBC Alternative Budget Breakdown

       Working off the Chairman's Mark, As Amended, all 
     calculations are for changes above/below proposed Fiscal Year 
     2006 levels.
       On behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, this Amendment 
     in the Nature of a Substitute seeks to offer to Congress and 
     the American people an alternative budget that is fiscally 
     responsible and aimed at reducing disparities in our 
     communities. The CBC alternative budget raises revenue by 
     reducing the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for an individual's 
     adjusted gross income that exceeds $200,000 and not adopting 
     the new Republican tax cuts, eliminating corporate tax 
     incentives for off-shoring jobs, closing tax loopholes, 
     abusive shelters, and methods of tax avoidance, and 
     eliminating the repeal of the limitation on itemized 
     deductions (Pease) and the phase-out of personal exemptions 
     (PEP) scheduled to take place between 2006 and 2010. These 
     funds total an estimated $36.3 billion in FY 2006. The CBC 
     budget uses nearly $4 billion of these additional revenues 
     for deficit reduction. The remaining funds are used to 
     restore cuts and fund increases in specific budget function 
     areas. These include full funding for No Child Left Behind 
     and providing funds for school construction and increases for 
     other education and job training programs. The CBC 
     alternative budget allocates additional funding for job 
     creation programs under SBA, community and regional 
     development programs including community development block 
     grants, and law enforcement initiatives such as juvenile 
     justice and prisoner reentry programs. It provides funding 
     for child nutrition programs, community health centers, NASA 
     research and development, Amtrak, Hope VI and Section 8 
     housing programs, and housing for the disabled and the 
     elderly.
       In addition, the CBC alternative budget reduces funding for 
     the Ballistic Missile Defense program by $7.8 billion. The 
     CBC alternative budget reallocates all of this money for 
     additional support for the troops in Iraq and other defense 
     items necessary to maintain our military strength and jobs, 
     homeland security needs, and veterans programs and benefits.


       I. Revenue Raisers and Defense Reallocation [in billions]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       FY06     FY07     FY08     FY09     FY10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General ($36.3 billion):
    Reduce Tax Cut Over $200k......................................     22.9     24.5     25.5     27.6     28.9

[[Page 5117]]

 
    Elim Offshoring Incentives.....................................     10.0     10.0     10.0     10.0     10.0
    Closing Tax Loopholes..........................................      2.0      2.0      2.0      2.0      2.0
    Elim Repeal Pease & PEP........................................      1.4      2.0      4.6      6.5      8.5
Defense ($7.8 billion):
    Reduce Ballistic Missile Def...................................      7.8
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
        Total......................................................     44.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     General Revenue Raisers
       A reduction in the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for an 
     individual's adjusted gross income that exceeds $200,000; 
     furthermore, the CBC budget alternative does not adopt the 
     new Republican tax cuts.
       Eliminating corporate tax incentives for off-shoring jobs.
       The closing tax loopholes category includes closing abusive 
     (tax) shelters and methods of tax avoidance.
       Eliminating the repeal of the limitation on itemized 
     deductions (Pease) and the phase-out of personal exemptions 
     (PEP) scheduled to take place between 2006 and 2010.
       The CBC budget applies nearly $4 billion out of the general 
     revenue to deficit reduction in Fiscal Year 2006.
     Defense Reallocation
       The cost of the Ballistic Missile Defense program is $8.8 
     billion in Fiscal Year 2006. This budget leaves $1 billion in 
     that program for research and development.
       All of the funds reduced from that program are then 
     reallocated to additional support for the troops in Iraq and 
     other defense items necessary to maintain our military 
     strength and jobs, homeland security needs (under the general 
     allowances function), and veterans programs and benefits.


                 II. Programs (General): $36.3 billion

       All functions except Function 050 (National Defense), 
     Function 700 (Veterans), and Function 920 (Allowances). All 
     calculations are for changes above/below proposed Fiscal Year 
     2006 levels included in the Republican budget.

Function 150--International Affairs.........................+$1 billion
    Foreign Aid to Africa and the Caribbean................$250 million
    Global AIDS Initiative/State Department................$500 million
    Public Health and Preventable Illness Initiatives......$250 million
                                                       ================

Function 250--General Science, Space, and Technology......+$500 million
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    NASA Aeronautics Research and Development..............$200 million
    NASA Space Shuttle safety..............................$100 million
    Restore R & D funding for the NSF, DOE and NIST........$170 million
    NOAA Funding............................................$30 million
                                                       ________________
                                                       
Function 270--Energy..........................................no change
                                                       ________________
                                                       
Function 300--Natural Resources and Environment............+$50 million
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities Historic Preservation 
      Program...............................................$50 million
Function 350--Agriculture.................................+$300 million
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    1890 Land-grant Historically Black Colleges and Universi$75 million
    Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program..........$100 million
    USDA Office of Civil Rights.............................$25 million
    Restore/modify draconian cuts in agriculture programs that affect 
      minorities...........................................$100 million
                                                       ================

Function 370--Commerce and Housing Credit...................+$1 billion
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    SBA Loan Programs--7(a), Microloan, PRIME, New Market V$145 million
    Adult training and dislocated workers program..........$185 million
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership.....................$70 million
    Home Ownership Initiatives.............................$600 million
                                                       ================

Function 400--Transportation..............................+$150 million
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Amtrak.................................................$100 million
    Public Transportation...................................$50 million
                                                       ================

Function 450--Community and Regional Development..........+$1.5 billion
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Community Development Block Grants...................$1.122 billion
    Brownfields Economic Development........................$24 million
    Empowerment Zones.......................................$22 million
    Community Development Financial Institutions............$48 million
    Economic Development Assistance........................$284 million
                                                       ================

Function 500--Education and Training.....................+$23.9 billion
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    School Construction....................................$2.5 billion
    Full Funding for No Child Left Behind, including:.......$12 billion
      Title I
      Safe and Drug Free Schools
      21st Century Learning Centers
      Teacher Quality Programs
      Education Technology
      Fund for the Improvement of Education
      English Language Acquisition
      Migrant Education
    Elementary and Secondary School Counseling..............$50 million
                                                       ================

    Vocational Education...................................$1.5 billion
    Job Training...........................................$750 million
    Adult Education........................................$400 million
    Pell Grants............................................$450 million
    Head Start...............................................$2 billion
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).......$2 billion
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)...$500 million
    Hispanic Serving Institutions..........................$400 million
    TRIO...................................................$500 million
    Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs 
      (GEAR-UP)............................................$350 million
    Perkins Loans..........................................$100 million
    Impact Aid.............................................$300 million
    SEOG...................................................$100 million
                                                       ================

Function 550--Health........................................+$1 billion
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Minority Health and Eliminating Health Disparities.....$490 million
    Community Health Centers...............................$500 million
    Office of Minority Health...............................$10 million
                                                       ================

Function 570--Medicare........................................no change
                                                       ________________
                                                       
Function 600--Income Security...............................+$2 billion
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Section 8 Housing Program..............................$880 million
    HOPE VI................................................$500 million
    Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program..............$200 million
    Child Nutrition Programs...............................$200 million
    Housing for the Disabled...............................$120 million
    Housing for the Elderly................................$100 million
                                                       ================

Function 650--Social Security.................................no change
                                                       ________________
                                                       
Function 750--Administration of Justice.....................+$1 billion
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Juvenile Justice.......................................$600 million
    Department of Justice Prisoner Reentry Program.........$300 million
    Weed and Seed and Drug Elimination Programs............$100 million
                                                       ================

Function 800--General Government..............................no change
                                                       ================

      Total General.......................................$32.4 billion
                                                       ================

      Amount to be applied to deficit reduction............$3.9 billion
                                                       ================



 III. Programs (Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans): $7.8 billion

       All of the funds reduced from Ballistic Missile Defense are 
     reallocated within various functions to provide for 
     additional support for the troops in Iraq and other defense 
     items necessary to maintain our military strength and jobs 
     ($1.1 billion), homeland security needs ($2.05 billion), and 
     veterans programs and benefits ($4.65 billion). All 
     calculations are for changes above/below proposed Fiscal Year 
     2006 levels included in the Republican budget.

Function 050--National Defense............................-$6.7 billion
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Body armor, personal support equipment, and other protective gear 
      for troops, and vehicle armor.........................$75 million

[[Page 5118]]

    Ammunition for Marine Corps.............................$10 million
    Small Arms for Army.....................................$10 million
    Building/Maintenance of Navy ships.......................$1 billion
    To study instances of waste, fraud and abuse within DoD business 
      processes and implement specific GAO recommendations fo$5 million
                                                       ================

Function 700--Veterans...................................+$4.65 billion
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Veterans Health Care.....................................$1 billion
    Survivor Benefit Plan..................................$100 million
    Disabled Veterans Tax {''concurrent receipt''].........$2.5 billion
    Fund long-term care initiatives for veterans...........$400 million
    Remove proposed $250 enrollment fee on Priority 7&8 vet$300 million
    Remove proposed increases in co-payments for Priority 7$150 million
    Prosthetic needs for veterans..........................$100 million
    VA Medical and Prosthetic Research......................$50 million
    Mental Health Care for Veterans.........................$50 million
                                                       ================

Function 920--Allowances (all for purposes of Homeland Se+$2.05 billion
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Rail Security..........................................$100 million
    Port Security, including air cargo screening, preventing nuclear/
      radiological weapons in cargo containers, research and 
      development, and grants..............................$500 million
    Centers for Disease Control............................$250 million
    First Responders.......................................$900 million
    Interoperable communications systems for first responder$85 million
    Federal air marshals....................................$65 million
    Internal Customs Enforcement/Border Patrol Agents......$150 million
                                                       ================

      Total defense funds used, all of which are reallocated to 
        defense, Homeland Security needs, and veterans programs and 
        benefits...........................................$7.8 billion

  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify one thing, and then I will just 
close. I heard a few minutes ago that our budget, the House resolution 
does not fund the war against global terrorism. In fact, it does. There 
is $80 billion for 2004, plus an additional $50 million for 2005.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman for bringing up a budget. The 
problem with that budget again is that it kills job creation with huge 
tax increases. But if you believe in huge taxes, you should vote for 
their amendment and not vote against it. It has, again, huge additional 
spending of the hardearned money of the American taxpayers. It has huge 
reductions in defense spending in a time of war. And because of all 
those reasons, Mr. Chairman, by the way, it also assumes that there is 
no waste in the Federal budget whatsoever because it does not go after 
one penny, not one little penny of waste in the Federal budget.
  And for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request 
that we vote down this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remaining part of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have time left that he 
might be able to yield to me instead of yielding back?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has yielded back his 
time and the gentleman from North Carolina has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time, and I thank 
the gentleman for his time. I want to thank all of the members of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, and I especially want to thank their staffs 
who have really gone to a lot of trouble to help us put this budget 
together. This is the budget, Members, that gives you the choice. And a 
budget is about making choices. That is really what a budget is.
  In our own households, we have to make choices. The choices we have 
made favor closing disparities that exist in our society that have been 
here for years and years. The choice we make is to fund No Child Left 
Behind fully, and not to fund a ballistic missile system that has been 
a failure, even though we allow research to continue on that front.
  So I would ask our friends to face up to these choices and resolve 
them in a way that helps us close these disparities that have existed 
throughout the history in this country.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the CBC 
Budget, a common-sense framework that embraces our values, that focuses 
on fiscal discipline and that invests in our nation's future.
  To be frank, the budget that President Bush presented us with is a 
betrayal of the trust that is placed in us as legislators. It violates 
the commitments that we have made to our children, to our veterans, and 
to our farmers and it does so while amassing mountains of debt, that we 
have no means of repaying.
  I stand in support of the CBC Budget because it is a fiscally 
responsible alternative that targets the disparities that plague our 
communities and puts our priorities where they belong. It lowers the 
astronomical budget deficit, by eliminating corporate tax loopholes and 
abusive tax shelters at the same time that it lowers tax cuts for 
individuals making more than $200,000 a year.
  This adjustment would restore an estimated $36.3 billion in FY 2006, 
including nearly $4 billion for deficit reduction. We will fully fund 
No Child Left Behind; build and repair schools; increase investment in 
job training and job creation programs. We will not slash community and 
regional development programs, rather we will continue to invest in 
housing for those who need assistance. We provide funding for child 
nutrition programs, community health centers, NASA research and 
development, Amtrak, Hope VI and Section 8 housing programs, and 
housing for the disabled and the elderly. And we keep our commitments 
to our nation's farmers who are depending on us to keep the promises 
that we made in the 2002 Farm Bill.
  Additionally, the CBC Budget allocates funding for Veterans and 
Defense above the president's requested level, to support our troops in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, bolster our homeland security needs, and fully 
fund our veterans programs and benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe in fiscal responsibility. I believe that in 
times of national and fiscal crisis, sacrifices need to be made. But, I 
also believe that they need to be made by all Americans. It is unfair 
to scale back government programs that benefit hard working families in 
order to fund tax cuts that most benefit the wealthiest of Americans. 
We all need to make sacrifices, but we must also keep our priorities 
straight.
  I believe that the CBC Budget does just that.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, this Congressional Black Caucus alternative 
budget continues the CBC tradition of advocating for increased federal 
aid to education as the first priority of the world's only superpower. 
For the last ten years the Members ofthe CBC have boldly trumpeted the 
fact that there is an Education State-of-Emergency in the African 
American community and in the mainstream of America.
  The American people enhanced by universal quality education 
constitute the greatest Weapon of Mass Construction our nation can 
have. To maintain this Weapon of Mass Construction, to maximize 
Homeland Security, education must be our front line of defense. To 
confront violent fanatics and zealots in the military arena our 
soldiers must be the best trained and most educated fighting force in 
the world. To maintain, expand and guide the most complex economic 
system in the history of our civilization in ways that guarantee 
continued prosperity we must accept nothing less than overwhelming 
supremacy in education.
  Our budget must reflect this overwhelming quest for supremacy. 
Members of the CBC have proudly supported an increase of 23.9 billion 
dollars in the education budget. More specifically we have supported 
the following restorations and increases:

Function 500--Education and Training.....................+$23.9 billion
School Construction........................................$2.5 billion

[[Page 5119]]

Full Funding for No Child Left Behind, including: Title I, Safe and 
  Drug Free Schools, 21st Century Learning Centers, Teacher Quality 
  Programs, Education Technology, Fund for the Improvement of 
  Education, English Language Acquisition, and Migrant Educa$12 billion
Elementary and Secondary School Counseling..................$50 million
Vocational Education.......................................$1.5 billion
Job Training...............................................$750 million
Adult Education............................................$400 million
Pell Grants................................................$450 million
Head Start...................................................$2 billion
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)...........$2 billion
Historically Black Colleges
  and Universities (HBCUs).................................$500 million
Hispanic Serving Institutions..............................$400 million
TRIO.......................................................$500 million
Gaining Early Awareness
  and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP).......$350 million
Perkins Loans..............................................$100 million
Impact Aid.................................................$300 million
SEOG.......................................................$100 million

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 134, 
noes 292, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               AYES--134

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--292

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Capuano
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ford

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Coble
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     Gohmert
     Young (FL)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Biggert) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1328

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. GRAVES, Ms. HARRIS, and Mr. LANGEVIN changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CARDIN, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Ms. KAPTUR, and MESSRS. DINGELL, 
LEVIN and DAVIS of Florida 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.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion to 
rise offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 101, 
noes 313, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               AYES--101

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)

[[Page 5120]]


     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Strickland
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson

                               NOES--313

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Obey
       

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Boehner
     Cardoza
     Coble
     Cummings
     Delahunt
     Doolittle
     Hinojosa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larsen (WA)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     Ney
     Olver
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bishop of Utah) (during the vote). Members 
are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1351

  Messrs. MARCHANT, POMEROY, BOREN, HONDA and RUPPERS-BERGER changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 
No. 86, on the motion that the Committee rise. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 86.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 109-19.


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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2006.

       The Congress declares that the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006 is hereby established and that 
     the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2005 and 
     2007 through 2015 are set forth.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2015:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,487,366,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,616,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,740,221,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,873,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,998,215,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,112,618,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,287,981,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,494,117,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,629,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,775,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,927,959,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be increased are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $3,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $9,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $20,950,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $37,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $42,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $46,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $0.
       Fiscal year 2012: $0.
       Fiscal year 2013: $0.
       Fiscal year 2014: $0.
       Fiscal year 2015: $0.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,073,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,164,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,243,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,363,415,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,486,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,593,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,717,544,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,792,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,923,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,051,690,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,187,568,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,055,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,170,816,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,239,707,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,340,321,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,450,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,563,060,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,693,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,758,914,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,893,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,019,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,154,637,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $568,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $554,154,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $499,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $466,686,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $452,320,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $450,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $405,351,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $264,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $264,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $243,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $226,678,000,000.

[[Page 5121]]

       (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 2005: $7,958,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,624,174,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,240,066,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,830,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,411,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $10,995,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $11,531,493,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,942,708,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,347,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $12,734,145,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,102,135,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,685,413,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,061,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,364,948,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,618,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,838,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $6,040,401,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011: $6,180,515,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012: $6,167,267,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $6,142,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $6,089,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $6,012,424,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2005 through 2015 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $497,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $441,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $475,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $465,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $503,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $513,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $505,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $527,137,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $524,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $540,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $529,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $554,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $546,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $568,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $560,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $583,342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $575,262,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,085,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,718,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,397,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,928,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,251,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,951,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,770,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,713,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,377,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,165,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,413,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,757,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,219,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,525,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,738,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,005,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,415,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,274,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,711,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,257,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,099,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,529,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,564,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,175,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,366,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,225,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,717,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,278,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,910,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,975,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,764,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,006,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,041,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,255,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,382,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,484,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,072,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,390,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,790,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,523,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,572,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,235,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,606,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,935,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,371,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,958,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,829,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,771,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,450,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,209,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,953,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,237,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,015,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,262,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,134,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,390,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,354,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,804,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,302,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,796,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,817,000,000.

[[Page 5122]]

       (B) Outlays, $5,913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,894,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,116,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,565,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,394,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,914,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,129,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,848,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,330,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,130,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,479,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,331,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,975,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,726,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,820,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,014,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,873,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,917,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,756,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,190,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,884,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,837,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,211,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,780,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,879,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,108,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,777,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,099,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,808,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,765,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,976,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,670,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,177,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $104,062,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,156,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $105,630,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $103,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,195,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $109,127,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,224,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $111,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $109,057,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $257,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $252,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $264,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $263,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $279,286,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $277,318,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $299,465,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $297,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $322,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $318,142,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $343,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $341,356,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $368,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $365,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $393,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $391,254,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $421,907,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $418,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $452,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $449,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $485,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $482,145,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $292,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $293,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $331,329,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $331,092,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $371,899,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $372,191,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,312,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $395,364,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $420,234,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $419,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $448,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $487,195,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $487,199,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $511,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $511,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $560,039,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $560,317,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $605,854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $605,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $656,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $655,599,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $339,184,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $347,817,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $349,208,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $355,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $356,831,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $361,653,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $371,394,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $375,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $382,459,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $384,918,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $393,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $395,586,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $408,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $410,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $396,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $398,288,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $412,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $412,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $423,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $422,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $434,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $433,325,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,849,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,891,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,891,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,704,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,029,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,837,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,837,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,885,000,000.

[[Page 5123]]

       (B) Outlays, $30,885,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,442,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,528,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,528,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,448,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,873,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,467,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,468,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,394,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,368,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,077,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,049,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,114,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,717,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,351,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,597,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,855,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,257,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,501,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,980,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,066,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,896,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,723,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,041,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,282,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,014,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,760,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,748,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,164,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,999,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,024,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,054,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,325,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,296,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,172,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,412,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,944,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,457,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,548,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $267,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $267,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $310,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $358,985,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $358,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,851,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $395,851,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $424,099,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $424,099,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $450,267,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $450,267,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $474,290,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $474,290,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $494,088,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $494,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $508,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $508,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $524,530,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $524,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $538,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $538,755,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $11,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $4,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $2,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       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.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,351,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$55,351,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,253,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$64,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$65,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$65,983,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$61,868,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,243,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$64,440,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$63,815,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, -$67,045,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,545,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$69,168,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$68,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$72,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$72,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$74,924,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$74,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$76,984,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$76,984,000,000.

           TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

                       Subtitle A--Reserve Funds

     SEC. 201. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   COVERAGE 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, including preventing the erosion 
     of existing coverage under Medicaid, 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 2006 and for the period of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2015.

     SEC. 202. RESERVE FUND FOR NEGOTIATION OF LOWER MEDICARE DRUG 
                   PRICES.

       (a) In General.--In the House, if the Committee on Ways and 
     Means or the Committee on Energy and Commerce reports a bill 
     or joint resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or 
     a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides for a 
     reduction in new budget authority and outlays under part D of 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act through authority 
     described in subsection (b), insofar as such measure does not 
     provide for new budget authority in the form of a reduction 
     in beneficiary cost-sharing (which may include the partial or 
     complete elimination of the so-called donut hole) under such 
     part, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     revise the appropriate budgetary aggregates and allocations 
     of new

[[Page 5124]]

     budget authority and outlays to reflect any resulting new 
     savings from such measure.
       (b) Authority Defined.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
     authority described in this subsection is authority for the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate 
     prescription drug prices under part D of title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act, which may include either or both of the 
     following:
       (1) Authority to negotiate prescription drug prices similar 
     to the authority used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
     the Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other Federal 
     agencies and departments in the purchase of prescription 
     drugs.
       (2) Other methods that lower the price of covered part D 
     drugs under such part D.

                   Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

     SEC. 211. 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 2005: $42,806,000,000,
       (2) for fiscal year 2006: $45,899,100,000,
       (3) for fiscal year 2007: $47,828,700,000,
       (4) for fiscal year 2008: $49,715,400,000, or
       (5) for fiscal year 2009: $51,743,500,000,

     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 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 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 $42,792,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006 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 III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE HOUSE.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives to consider any direct spending or revenue 
     legislation that would increase the on-budget deficit or 
     cause an on-budget deficit for any of the following periods:
       (1) The budget year.
       (2) The period of the budget year and the next 4 fiscal 
     years.
       (3) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the period 
     specified in paragraph (2).
       (b) On-Budget Deficit.--
       (1) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``on-budget deficit'' means a budget deficit that occurs in 
     any year in which total outlays exceed total revenues, 
     counting Federal revenues and outlays, except those of the 
     old age, survivors and disability insurance trust funds 
     established under title II of the Social Security Act, as 
     provided in subtitle C, section 13301 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 
     of Representatives.
       (d) Expiration.--This section shall expire on December 31, 
     2015.

                      TITLE IV--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

     SEC. 401. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON DEFENSE PRIORITIES.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) increasing Service members Group Life Insurance (SGLI) 
     coverage to $400,000 and providing free coverage to those in 
     combat, and increasing the death gratuity to $100,000, are 
     high priorities which should not have been omitted from the 
     President's budget request;
       (2) continuing targeted pay increases for enlisted 
     personnel and increasing reenlistment bonuses are also high 
     priorities which should not have been omitted from the 
     President's budget request because they are critical to the 
     retention of experienced personnel;
       (3) increasing funds for family service centers to support 
     families of deploying service members is a high priority, and 
     the President's budget should have requested sufficient 
     funding for this purpose;
       (4) increasing funds for community-based health care 
     organizations is a high priority to enable injured service 
     men and women to receive the care they need close to home, 
     and the President's budget should have included sufficient 
     funding for this purpose;
       (5) funding cooperative threat reduction and nuclear 
     nonproliferation programs at a level adequate to the task and 
     the risks to our nation is also a high priority and was 
     recommended five years ago by the Baker-Cutler Commission, 
     and the President's budget should have requested sufficient 
     funding in this area;
       (6) funding the Missile Defense Agency at a substantial but 
     lower level will ensure a more measured acquisition strategy, 
     yet still support a robust ballistic missile defense program;
       (7) funding satellite research, development, and 
     procurement at a level above the amount enacted for 2005 but 
     below the amount requested for 2006, which represents an 
     increase of more than 50 percent, will provide adequate 
     funding for new satellite technologies, while ensuring a more 
     prudent acquisition strategy;
       (8) improving financial management at the Department of 
     Defense should identify billions of dollars of obligations 
     and disbursements which the Government Accountability Office 
     has found that the Department of Defense cannot account for, 
     and should result in substantial annual savings;
       (9) all savings that accrue from the actions recommended in 
     paragraphs (6) through (8) should be used to fund higher 
     priorities within the national security function of the 
     budget, function 050, and especially those high priorities 
     identified in paragraphs (1) through (5), as well as a strong 
     ship force and defense-related homeland security activities.

     SEC. 402. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON EXTENSION OF THE PAY-AS-YOU-
                   GO RULE OF 1997.

       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. 403. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE 
                   MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) this resolution provides a total of $110 million for 
     the Manufacturing Extension Partnership for 2006, $63 million 
     more than the President's request, and supports adequate 
     funding throughout the period covered by this resolution; and
       (2) this funding protects 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. 404. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON EDUCATION.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) the resolution rejects the President's cuts to 
     elementary and secondary education, as well as the 
     President's proposals to increase student costs for college 
     loans and to cut or eliminate programs that help students 
     obtain a post-secondary education;
       (2) the resolution provides a $100 annual increase in the 
     maximum Pell Grant award in each of the next ten years, and 
     assumes increased efficiency in the student loan programs; 
     and
       (3) the mandatory levels in this resolution provide the 
     $4.3 billion needed to eliminate the current shortfall in the 
     Pell Grant program, restoring the program to a sound 
     financial basis.

     SEC. 405. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON HOMELAND SECURITY.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) this resolution provides additional homeland security 
     funding above the President's requested level for 2006 and 
     every subsequent year;
       (2) this resolution provides $9,800,000,000 above the 
     President's requested level for 2006, and greater amounts in 
     subsequent years, in the four budget functions (Function 400, 
     Transportation; Function 450, Community and Regional 
     Development; Function 550, Health; and Function 750, 
     Administration of Justice) which fund most nondefense 
     homeland security activities; and
       (3) 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, and help 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. 406. 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

[[Page 5125]]

     the military in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget.

     SEC. 407. POLICY.

       It is the policy of this budget resolution to balance long-
     term deficit reduction with middle-income tax relief. To this 
     end, this resolution assumes tax relief, subject to the PAYGO 
     requirements as imposed in section 301, which includes the 
     following:
       (1) extension of the child tax credit;
       (2) extension of marriage penalty relief;
       (3) extension of the 10 percent individual bracket;
       (4) modification of the alternative minimum tax to minimize 
     its impact on middle-income taxpayers;
       (5) elimination of estate taxes on all but the very largest 
     estates by reforming and substantially increasing the unified 
     credit;
       (6) extension of the research and experimentation tax 
     credit;
       (7) extension of the deduction for State and local sales 
     taxes.

     To meet the revenue requirements of this resolution and to 
     comply with the PAYGO requirements imposed in section 301, 
     this budget resolution assumes revenue measures such as: 
     strengthening tax compliance; imposing measures to close 
     corporate tax avoidance devices; and continuing the current 
     limitations on personal exemptions and itemized deductions 
     (so-called ``PEP'' and ``Pease'')--the repeal of which 
     disproportionately benefits taxpayers with annual incomes 
     exceeding $1 million.

     SEC. 408. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE NATIONAL RAILROAD 
                   PASSENGER CORPORATION.

       It is the sense of the House that the budget should reject 
     the cuts to Amtrak in the President's budget and should 
     provide sufficient resources to allow Amtrak to carry forward 
     its mission.

     SEC. 409. 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 lack of clarity have 
     made compliance more challenging for the average taxpayer and 
     small business owner; 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, and ensures that this generation of 
     Americans does not force future generations to pay our bills.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 154, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to personally thank the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) so much for the work that he has done 
in having the record make it clear that we in the House of 
Representatives did have an alternative to what was presented to us.
  There is a lot of talk about moral values that we hear about 
politically; but I do not care what your religious background is, there 
are always these stories about the sick and the poor in need; and on 
the other side, the option is for the rich and the greedy and the 
insensitive.
  You do not have to be a Republican or a Democrat when you look at the 
document that was placed before us by the majority and then to take a 
look at the compassion and the common sense that is involved in the 
alternative that the gentleman from South Carolina and his team have 
brought to us. But I am not here to talk about compassion. I am too old 
to believe that it is going to change.
  I am here to talk about national security, national security at a 
time that we are going through these economic deficits. It would just 
seem to me that it would make a lot of sense if we invested in our 
young people that are going to school, to make them more productive and 
make them tax-paying. It seems to me it would make a lot of sense to 
invest in someone's health so that they would not have to go to 
community centers, which are being cut back, that they would not have 
to go into the hospitals.
  It seems to me that we would have a sense of national security by 
thanking our veterans who fight the war, keep the spirits up and not 
tax them for getting sick or having ailments. It seems to me that in 
the final analysis, what we have done is borrow money and ask that we 
make these tremendous tax cuts permanent and whatever our kids get and 
our grandchildren get will be the debt that this body can possibly 
place on them.
  I just hope that somewhere along the line someone would say that if 
you really care about this country, that you will care about all of its 
people, you will be concerned about its working people and be concerned 
in making Social Security something that will be guaranteed for them 
because we promised them that it would be.
  But I do not think that anyone takes this budget seriously, not if 
you leave out of it the alternative minimum tax, which no one would 
want to be able to tell their constituents that this $600 billion tax 
increase that we are going to place on them, that we did not mean to do 
it; and no matter how many cities the President goes to, no one would 
believe that he was sincere about reforming the Social Security system 
when he knows, Republicans know, Democrats know, that it is going to 
take money to do this and that is not in the budget. And there are so 
many other things that are left out. Even the money that is paid into 
Social Security, that is not counted as a part of our debt.
  But one day, just one day, historians or maybe our kids and grandkids 
are going to ask each and every one of us, when this country was going 
into this deficit hellhole and when the poor were becoming poorer and 
the sick, we were cutting their benefits, what were you doing and how 
were you voting, and I am glad that we will have an opportunity just 
not to be able to vote against what the majority has given us, but that 
we have an alternative that the gentleman from South Carolina and the 
minorities on the Budget Committee and so many others have worked 
together to say that we are proud to be Americans, we are proud to be 
Members of Congress, and we are proud that we voted the right way.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the committee.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in strong opposition to the Spratt amendment. I respect 
the ranking member and the work that he has put into the Budget 
Committee, but I have to clarify a number of points that have been made 
by the prior speaker.
  This budget goes a long way toward laying out priorities for this 
Nation. We have through this process been afforded the opportunity to 
see a variety of different sets of priorities. Members have had the 
opportunity to vote on four different blueprints for this Nation, 
across the ideological and political spectrum. I think that is a 
healthy thing. I do not think that happens enough in this House where 
we have good solid debate like this. The differences amongst those 
priorities, though, are stark.
  Our budget lays out a blueprint that invests in defense and invests 
in homeland security, two things that we find to be most urgent at a 
time when our Nation has come under attack recently and where we are 
engaged in conflict against terrorism around the world. We create in 
this budget blueprint an opportunity for policies to move forward that 
create jobs, that allow for continued economic expansion, that allow us 
to build upon the fact that homeownership is at its highest rate ever, 
that Americans are enjoying a lower tax burden that allows them to make 
decisions about their children's higher education, about their small 
business, about their opportunity to carve out their piece of the 
American Dream.
  It does not raise taxes on those same small business men and women 
who are taxed at the individual rate because they are an S corporation, 
because they are a small business, because they are the neighborhood 
barber or diner or farmer. We lay out a policy that also

[[Page 5126]]

calls for fiscal restraint, and we balance the approach to fiscal 
restraint on both the discretionary side of the ledger and the 
mandatory side of the ledger.
  For those who are uninformed about Washingtonese, the mandatory side 
of the ledger now consumes over half of the Federal budget and soon 
will consume over two-thirds. It is on automatic pilot. You cannot get 
your arms around the deficit without tackling mandatory spending. Our 
side knows that. The other side knows that.
  You cannot be serious about budget reform without simultaneously 
addressing discretionary spending and mandatory spending. We do that. 
We shave the rate of growth by one-tenth of 1 percent. Yet the New 
Testament is invoked on a regular basis from the other side's talking 
points to claim that there will be blood in the streets, that there 
will be mass pandemonium and starvation because one-tenth of 1 percent 
of mandatory spending's rate of growth has been shaven off.
  On the discretionary side, we bring eight-tenths of a percent cut to 
programs that have experienced double-digit increases over the last 
decade. You cannot look at the spending history of this House and this 
Congress' budget in veterans, in students with disabilities, in HUD, in 
education, in homeland security and defense and find anyone who has 
experienced real pain or real cuts in the last decade. There have been 
substantial increases. Our budget lays out that priority, investing in 
defense, creating economic opportunity and beginning that long process 
of making tough decisions, the decisions we are paid to make to get our 
arms around the deficit so that future generations are not burdened and 
that the current generation, current workers, current employers, 
current small businesses are not seeing their tax burden go up.
  Vote for the underlying House budget and defeat the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago, the budget was in surplus. Hard to 
believe, but it was in surplus by $236 billion. We are here today 
grappling with a deficit of $427 billion, the deficit expected this 
year, basically because of policy choices that were made since 2001, 
made since President Bush came to office.

                              {time}  1400

  The Bush administration bet the budget on a blue sky estimate and 
went for huge tax cuts that left no margin for error. I stood here in 
the well of this House in 2001 and warned that those projections of 
$5.6 trillion surplus could disappear in a blink of an economist's eye. 
When the surpluses of $5.6 trillion failed to materialize, the budget 
sank into deficit: $375 billion in 2003, $412 billion in 2004, and an 
expected $427 billion this year and on and on and on.
  I know there have been random events that no one foresaw, terrorism, 
and recession, but that is part of budgeting, reserving for such 
contingencies. The Bush Republican budgets of the last 4 years not only 
failed to provide for such contingencies, by budgeting right to the 
margin, but when deficits replaced surpluses, nevertheless they kept 
coming with tax cuts, tax cuts after tax cuts. This budget has $106 
billion in additional tax cuts included in it, knowing full well that 
all of those tax cuts will go straight to the bottom line and will add 
dollar for dollar to the deficit. That is one reason that the CBO says, 
in yesterday's production of the President's budget, that the 
President's budget makes this deficit worse, not better, by $1.6 
trillion. In other words, if we left it on autopilot, at current 
services, it would be $1.6 trillion more in implementing the 
President's budget.
  So let us be clear. We are here because of policy choices that 
Republicans have made, the White House and the Congress, over the last 
4 years, and you were forewarned and took the risk. Given the thrust of 
this budget that is before us, we will be back grappling again for 
years to come with deficits as far as the eye can see.
  Sitting here for the last 2 days I have heard their budget praised 
warmly by Members on the other side, and there are features of it, 
frankly, that I would praise too. For example, it includes $50 billion, 
as a rough cost, for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for another 
year, which is more than one can say for the President's budget, which 
does not include a dime. But this budget excludes the likely cost, 
according to CBO, in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, which CBO estimates to be 
$384 billion. This budget stops abruptly in 2010, running out 5 years 
of numbers instead of 10 years of numbers. That is a convenient place 
to stop because it avoids recognizing the cost of Social Security 
privatization, which the administration acknowledges will be $754 
billion between 2009 and 2015, but which it omits from the budget 
altogether. And while it calls for renewal of the 2001 and 2003 tax 
cuts, with the revenue impact of $1.6 trillion, not a dime of that 
revenue loss is included because it falls after 2010, but it clearly 
affects the outyears. Add back these omitted items, and it is clear 
there is no way, no way, that we are going to cut the deficit in half 
in 4 years, 5 years, 6 years. Indeed if we pass Social Security 
privatization, as the President proposes, it will add $4.9 trillion, as 
this chart shows, to the deficits of the United States over the next 20 
years. In that case we will not see the budget balanced again in our 
lifetime. That is an undeniable fact, but it is a fact that this budget 
avoids acknowledging.
  Sitting here for the last 2 days, I have also heard the claim that 
this budget takes on entitlements. In fact, the gentleman who was in 
the well just before me emphasized this as one of the sterling features 
of this amendment. But let us be clear. It does not take on Social 
Security. I do not think it should, but it does not. It does not take 
on Medicare. It does not do anything to the farm program.
  The chairman here has made it clear that these are not to be the 
objects of reconciliation savings. Reconciliation will mainly fall on 
Medicaid and on other programs like Medicaid, Medicaid being the health 
care program of last resort for the least among us. The President has 
proposed cutting Medicaid over 10 years by $60 billion, but when the 
Congressional Budget Office scored his savings and said we cannot find 
$20 billion of savings here, maybe 13, maybe 14, but not $20 billion in 
these proposals, nevertheless, the committee has said to the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce to cut $20 billion anyway. Three Governors were 
here to speak with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and me and to 
plead with us, ``Please do not subject us to an arbitrary budget 
savings number. This program needs to be reformed. It needs to be 
restructured, but do not let reform be driven by an arbitrary number.''
  That is exactly what this budget resolution does. It lets reform be 
driven by an arbitrary savings number. It cannot tell us what, where, 
or how those savings will be achieved. When what is off limits in the 
$68 billion of reconciliation is made clear, we can see where the cuts 
are likely to fall. Medicaid for sure, big-time cuts, but also the 
earned income tax credit, the child care and development block grant, 
food stamps, TANF, veterans benefits. In other words, the safety net. 
These cuts will shred the safety net. They are not intended for the 
major entitlement programs but for the smaller ones that are for the 
least of these who need the help, the most vulnerable among us.
  It will be argued, I know, that this is necessary to balance the 
budget, but, in truth, none of the $68 billion in reconciliation 
savings goes to balance the budget. That is because it is more than 
offset by the $106 billion in additional tax cuts. When we net these 
out, there is no spending reduction to put on the bottom line. There is 
no net reduction to the bottom line. The bottom line actually gets 
worse. Instead of using these mandatory spending cuts in Medicaid to 
reduce the deficit, as they would have us assume, these cuts actually 
are used to offset tax cuts. For whom we do not know, but, 
nevertheless, we do know they do not go to the bottom line and they do 
not mitigate the deficit.
  So there are major problems in this budget, particularly when it 
comes to

[[Page 5127]]

the key objective, and that is reduction of the deficit. And I will 
return to that in a minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the distinguished whip on the House Democratic side.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget conclusively demonstrates one 
thing: that when it comes to audacity, our friends on the other side of 
the aisle have an unlimited supply.
  Yesterday Republican leaders, including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), majority leader; and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, claimed on this floor that 
the policies adopted by the Republican Party last year reduced last 
year's budget deficit by $109 billion. What an extraordinary Lewis 
Carroll ``Alice in Wonderland'' representation.
  You incurred over $350 billion of deficit, as you well know. The only 
thing you reduced was the inflated figure the White House came with at 
the beginning of the year. A figure that, by the way, was supposed to 
be zero, as I recall, the 2001 budget.
  On the Republican Party's watch, the Federal Government recorded the 
worst budget deficit in American history, $412 billion in fiscal year 
2004. Four hundred and twelve billion dollars of deficit spending, and 
that is counting using every nickel of Social Security, which you said 
you were not going to do, which the President said you were not going 
to do. And you had a ``lockbox.'' It is a sieve box.
  Our Republican friends, it appears, are the only people who believe 
that a $412 billion deficit is something to brag about. For years they 
have preened as fiscal conservatives, but in less than 48 months they 
have turned the projected 10-year budget surplus, a $5.6 trillion 
surplus that they were handed, that President Bush from this rostrum 
said we had as a result of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, 
$5.6 trillion, into a deficit today in 48 months. I will put up 8. 
Forty-eight months, $4 trillion dollars. That is a $9.6 trillion 
turnaround or $2 trillion plus a year.
  We ought to be ashamed of that. We ought to be ashamed to tell our 
children that that is what we have done to them. We ought to be ashamed 
to tell our grandchildren, of which I have three, that that is what we 
have done to them and their generation. We have added more than $2.2 
trillion to the national debt in 48 months. The entire debt of the 
United States of America from 1789 to 1981, when I came to Congress, 
was $985 billion, cumulative debt. From 1789 to 1981, $985 billion. 
Last year we raised the debt $984 billion in one year. That is the 
height of fiscal irresponsibility, and I suggest it is also a fiscally 
immoral act and is the abuse of our children and grandchildren and 
generations yet to come, who in their time will face a challenge 
perhaps like Iraq, perhaps like AIDS, perhaps a tsunami or other 
natural disaster, and they will look around for resources to respond to 
their crisis in their time and say, oh, my goodness, the resources were 
spent by this Congress and by the previous Congress. What a shame.
  The Democratic budget that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) offers has balance by 2012. It has the PAYGO system, which Mr. 
Greenspan is for, but you are not for because you do not want to pay. 
You talk about cutting taxes or raising taxes, but what you are really 
saying is you do not want to pay for what you are buying. And you buy 
because all the spending that we have incurred is in your budgets. All 
of the spending is in budgets. We cannot control the budgets. So all of 
the spending, but there is very little of the pain. That is fiscally 
irresponsible.
  I would like to see who is going to vote for the bankruptcy bill when 
it comes on the floor that want responsible borrowers.
  I will vote for the Spratt alternative because it is a responsible 
alternative, and I will enthusiastically and proudly and morally vote 
against the Republican alternative.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) for his hard work on this budget and for yielding me this time 
to talk about his budget and this alternative.
  Certainly his committee and he under his leadership have worked hard 
to bring us a fiscally responsible budget. The base bill we are 
debating today is the most fiscally conservative budget resolution we 
have considered since we joined the Congress.
  The cuts we are hearing about in Medicaid are really a reduction of 
the growth. The cut in Medicaid, as I read the base budget, is a cut in 
the growth rate of 7.5 percent to a growth rate of 7.3 percent. Where I 
live, and I suspect where most of us live, 7.3 percent growth would not 
be seen as a cut.
  The committee's budget permits us to extend recently enacted tax 
relief so that American families will not see a tax increase. What we 
have found is that if we trust the American people and American 
families, our economy grows again and it is growing. Passage of the 
committee's budget will provide for a real reduction of nearly 1 
percent in nonsecurity discretionary spending. After holding the line 
on that category of spending at almost no growth in the last budget 
year, we hope to do even better this year and actually have a reduction 
of 1 percent below last year's spending.
  Furthermore, the budget calls for a reduction in the rate of growth 
of mandatory spending. In addition to reducing spending, this bill will 
ultimately save taxpayers almost $69 billion over the next 5 years. 
Only rarely has the Congress even been willing to discuss looking at 
mandatory spending. Almost all of our debate about spending is about 
the increasingly declining percentage of the budget that is 
discretionary. We are increasingly losing our control over the budget 
because we have not been willing to tackle mandatory spending.

                              {time}  1415

  The chairman's budget, the committee's budget, says that mandatory 
spending can be, must be, and will be dealt with. It sets the targets 
for the authorizing committees to do their work and find the places to 
make this process more efficient and cut the growth in spending in 
those mandatory categories that the chairman's budget, the committee's 
budget, sets out. That does put us on a path to cutting the deficit in 
half within 5 years.
  The chairman's budget, the committee's budget, Mr. Chairman, is a 
good budget. I am proud of the work the Budget Committee and the 
chairman have done. I urge we move this budget forward today, we do the 
tough things in discretionary spending and mandatory spending it asks 
us to do, that we defeat the substitute and get on with our work.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have now come down to two budgets: one offered by 
the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and the majority and the most 
fiscally responsible budget we have seen in quite some time here; and 
another budget that wants to tax more and spend more, and that is their 
answer to the Nation's fiscal woes.
  Clearly, we agree that this Nation has a deficit and a deficit that 
is too large. But those on the other side of the aisle seem to act like 
spending has nothing to do with the equation in the deficit. We have 
been spending money here at over twice the rate of inflation, 50 
percent faster. The Federal budget has been growing 50 percent faster 
than

[[Page 5128]]

the family budget. We are on an unsustainable growth path on the growth 
of Federal Government. We must do something to control the growth of 
Federal Government.
  Now, previous speakers, I believe, have used the term ``auto pilot,'' 
that this budget puts the Nation on auto pilot. Well, let me tell you 
about the auto pilot that their budget puts this Nation on. That is an 
auto pilot that, if we do not do anything about spending, according to 
the General Accounting Office we are heading to a future where we will 
have to double Federal taxes or cut Federal spending by 50 percent.
  Well, they do not want to cut any Federal spending. So what that 
means is we are on auto pilot to double Federal taxes on the American 
family.
  Now, frankly, on our side, we have done our part. Tax revenues are 
up. We listened to the other side, and they talk about all the massive 
tax cuts. Well, I am sitting here, Mr. Chairman, and I have the latest 
reports out of the Congressional Budget Office. And guess what? We have 
cut marginal tax rates on the American family on small businesses. And 
guess what? Tax revenues have increased. Tax revenues are up. People go 
out and they save more and they invest more and they start small 
businesses.
  I was in Jacksonville, Texas, a small town in my district, not too 
long ago and visited with a small business there that does aluminum die 
casting. Prior to the Bush tax relief package, they were getting ready 
because of competitive pressures to have to lay off two people. But 
because of tax relief, they were able to modernize their plant and 
equipment, and instead of laying off two people, they hired three new 
people. Now, that is five people that could have been on welfare, five 
people that could have been on unemployment. But instead, five people 
who represent part of that over two million new jobs that have been 
created in America, five people that are paying in taxes, as opposed to 
taking out. And that is why we see that tax revenues have increased.
  And so, frankly, tax relief has been part of the deficit solution. 
And even if it were not, we are talking about a $2.6 trillion budget. 
And if you look at the line item, tax relief is $17 billion. Now, if 
you do the math, that means that tax relief is less than 1 percent of 
this Federal budget. So even if it was not bringing in new revenues to 
the government, how could tax relief amount to all of this problem?
  The challenge has been on the spending side. Just look over the last 
15 years: international affairs up 93 percent, agriculture up 165 
percent, transportation 78 percent, education 95 percent. And the list 
goes on and on and on.
  Now, often we get good things for our tax expenditures. We can have 
student loans; we can have Kevlar vests for our soldiers. But, 
unfortunately, quite often we do not get good things for our tax 
expenditures. Sometimes we get wheelchairs from Medicare that cost five 
times as much as those of the VA. Sometimes we get multimillion dollar 
studies of how college students decorate their dorms.
  We are talking about reducing the growth rate of government. And I 
cannot believe, and no American family would ever believe, that you 
cannot find seven-tenths of 1 percent, less than 1 percent, of waste or 
fraud or abuse or duplication. American families would laugh at that.
  And if we do not do this, Mr. Chairman, we are looking at this 
future, this auto pilot future that I believe is fiscally immoral, that 
will double taxes on our children and grandchildren. We need a budget, 
not for the next election; we need a budget for the next generation. 
And that is why I so strongly support the committee budget, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle's) budget, because it is that 
fiscally responsible budget for the next generation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Texas, I would 
simply like to say that I have here a copy of the CBO's report on the 
budget, January 2005, which shows that in the year 2000 we had revenues 
of $1,004 trillion under the individual income tax. Last year, in the 
year 2004, revenues were $809 billion. That is not an increase. That is 
a $200 billion decrease.
  One of the big differences between us and them is that we provide 
more for veterans health care and for veterans benefits. And now on 
that point, I recognize and yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Edwards.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I just went back to my office after I spoke, 
and I heard the gentleman speaking just now. And he talked about waste, 
fraud and abuse. And my question to the gentleman is, you have been 
through the budget hearings. Why do you suppose it is that the Bush 
administration over the last 50 months has not rooted out that waste, 
fraud, and abuse?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the opportunity is certainly theirs, having 
run the government for 4 years and having direct hands-on opportunities 
to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, that 
occurred to me as well. I thank the gentleman for his response.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the American people and America's veterans 
deserve to know the fact. The fact is that the Republican budget being 
pushed during a time of war would cut veterans benefits compared to 
today's services by $14 billion over 5 years. This bill is inadequate, 
and it is unconscionable in its treatment of veterans. But do not 
believe me; that is what America's veterans leaders have said about it.
  They have called it ``grossly inadequate'' and ``unconscionable.'' 
This came from the Disabled American Veterans and the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, two nonpartisan organizations. Maybe Republican leaders 
do not like it when veterans leaders point out the truth, but it is the 
truth.
  I am deeply disappointed that during a time of war we would have 
Members of this House pay lip service to the service of our veterans; 
but yet when it comes to what really counts, supporting medical care, 
they are going to cut it by $14 billion. That is 2 million veterans who 
will not receive health care under this budget.
  Vote for the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following correspondence for the Record:

                                       The Independent Budget,

                                                   March 17, 2005.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Chairman, House Budget Committee, Cannon House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Nussle: As you know, the President's 
     fiscal year 2006 budget would provide an appropriation for 
     veterans' medical care that is less than one-half of one 
     percent above the FY 2005 appropriation. Because this amount 
     would not begin to cover employee wage increases and other 
     inflationary costs, it amounts to a substantial cut in 
     funding and thus would unavoidably result in a reduction of 
     critical medical care services for our Nation's sick and 
     disabled veterans. Although we appreciate the adoption of the 
     Bradley amendment which added $229 million to the President's 
     recommendation for veterans' medical care, this is still 
     grossly inadequate.
       In addition, we understand that H. Con. Res. 95 includes 
     instructions to cut spending on mandatory veterans' programs, 
     such as disability compensation, by $798 million. We think 
     cutting veterans' benefit programs is unconscionable, 
     especially at a time when America's sons and daughters are 
     being wounded and killed every day in Iraq.
       The four major veterans organizations of The Independent 
     Budget, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 
     United States, therefore strongly urge support for amendments 
     offered by Representatives Spratt and Obey to increase 
     funding for veterans' programs. Passage of these amendments 
     is crucial if the VA is to maintain an adequate level of 
     health care and other services.
           Sincerely,
     Rick Jones,
       National Legislative Director, AMVETS.
     Richard B. Fuller,
       National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America.
     Joseph A. Violante,
       National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans.

[[Page 5129]]


     Dennis Cullinan,
       National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of 
     the United States.
                                  ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2005.
     Hon. Jim Nussle,
     Chairman, Committee on Budget, House of Representatives, 
         Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The American Legion is deeply troubled 
     with and cannot support your Committee's proposed budget 
     resolution, H. Con. Res. 95, with regard to funding for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), especially the 
     reconciliation instructions targeted at earned veterans' 
     benefits. Reducing mandatory appropriations for veterans' 
     disability compensation, pensions, and educational benefits 
     at a time of war is inconsistent with the thanks of a 
     grateful Nation.
       The American Legion believes VA's own admission that the 
     cost of doing business increases annually about 13-14 percent 
     because of Federal pay increases and inflation in the health 
     care arena. The President's budget request is ``scrubbed'' by 
     the Office of Management and Budget, so VA's true fiscal 
     requirements to meet the health care needs of America's 
     veterans are somewhat skewed. During the 108th Congress, 
     former VA Secretary Principi reported to your colleagues that 
     The FY 2005 proposed budget was $1.2 billion short of what he 
     had actually requested. It appears this pattern of 
     shortchanging VA medical care continues in the 109th 
     Congress. America's veterans and their families deserve 
     better.
       The American Legion recognizes and appreciates the Bradley 
     Amendment adopted by the Committee, but believes it falls 
     well short of the total funding needed in VA medical care. 
     Unfortunately, the Committee rejected the Edwards Amendment 
     that would have provided VA with adequate resources to 
     maintain current services.
       The American Legion would encourage adoption of one of the 
     amendments to be offered by Representatives Spratt or Obey 
     with regard to increasing VA funding. Clearly, both of these 
     amendments are in the best interest of veterans and their 
     families. Without adoption of one of these two amendments, 
     The American Legion cannot support this budget resolution.
       The American Legion appreciates your leadership and the 
     hard work of your colleagues on behalf of America's veterans 
     and their families.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas P. Cadmus,
                                               National Commander.

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget values the service of our veterans. It not 
only values their service, but it meets the needs of our country, a 
strong defense, a growing economy, while we also reduce our deficit. I 
would like to talk about where veterans spending has gone over the last 
10 years for just a moment.
  As you can see from this chart, this is the overall spending on 
veterans programs over that period of time, from 1995 to 2005. We talk 
about veterans health care, perhaps we could bring that chart up, that 
has increased from about $16.2 billion to $29.9 billion. That is 
substantial progress in honoring the commitment of our Nation's 
veterans.
  We have done a number of other things for veterans over the last 
several years, and perhaps if I could have the last chart. We have 
allowed Guard and Reservists to qualify for medical benefits; we have 
increased the GI education benefit over those years; we have opened up 
the VA system for all veterans to participate in and have funded it 
enough so that at least Priorities 1 through 7 are able to participate 
in that; and we have gone from 2.5 million veterans served under the VA 
to 4.8 million.
  We have increased survivor benefits. We finally dealt with the whole 
issue of concurrent receipts, so that a disabled veteran is able to 
collect either his or her disability benefit, as well as their 
retirement benefit. We have reduced the wait times to get into the VA 
hospitals, and the VA has maintained its excellent care.
  Let me talk about this budget, because under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), we started at the President's 
mark, which was about $30.8 billion for veterans health care, and the 
chairman's mark increased that to $31.5 billion. Working with the 
chairman, I introduced an amendment that raised that by $229 million. 
So as a result of the hard work of the veterans and the Committee on 
the Budget, we have increased from the President's baseline by $877 
million, which in these difficult fiscal times is a 2.8 percent 
increase.
  Further under the leadership of the chairman, we have reduced the 
reconciliation number to a number I believe is very manageable. If you 
recall, the President assumed copayments on drugs and an enrollment 
fee. But the chairman's mark, because it is so much lower, going from 
$424 million to $155 million, I believe working together in the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs with the Committee on the Budget that we 
can in fact look for waste, fraud, and abuse and eliminate those types 
of things, without having to have an enrollment fee, without having to 
have drug copayments. Let me repeat that. The chairman's budget does 
not assume either enrollment fees or those drug copayment fees.
  I look forward to working to make sure that we honor our commitment 
to our Nation's veterans. This is an excellent budget. It maintains a 
strong defense; it allows our economy to grow; and it meets critical 
needs for those who have defended our liberties, our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if I were voting for a budget that cut 
veterans benefits by $14 billion over the next 5 years, I guess I would 
want to talk about the past rather than the future as well.
  The difference is very clear, and it is very simple. Republicans 
voting for this bill say that it is okay to cut veterans health care 
benefits by $14 billion over the next 5 years. Democrats and national 
veterans organizations say it is wrong. In fact, the DAV, the VFW say 
it is a grossly inadequate budget, it is an unconscionable budget, 
especially at a time when America's sons and daughters are being killed 
and wounded every day in Iraq.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, before voting on this budget resolution, everyone 
should ask, what does it do to education, what does it do to the 
development of our communities, what does it do for veterans health 
care, and what does it do to the bottom line?
  In seeking an answer to those questions, I would recommend that you 
look no further than a publication which came to your offices yesterday 
from the CBO, fresh off the press. Read table 1.1, page 2, and look in 
the far upper right-hand corner, and you will see the amount of debt we 
will incur over the next 10 years if this budget, which is essentially 
the President's budget, is adopted and implemented: $5.135 trillion in 
additional debt.

                              {time}  1430

  But that is without funding the war in Iraq after 2005. It is without 
fixing the alternative minimum tax estimated to cut revenues by $640 
billion. And it is without reflecting one cent for Social Security 
privatization which the administration acknowledges to be a cost of 
$754 billion between 2009 and 2015.
  Adjust for these additional costs and this budget will add $7 
trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. It will double 
the debt.
  If that is the legacy you want to leave your children and your 
grandchildren, then vote for this bill. But if you want to put the 
budget back on a path to balance as it was in the year 2000, if you 
want to avoid the accumulation of that mountain of debt, then vote for 
the Spratt or Democratic alternative.
  Our budget resolution gets to balance by the year 2012. It 
accumulates $1.7 trillion less in debt over the next 10 years than the 
Republican budget base bill.
  Ours also protects priorities, our children's education, our 
veterans, health care, our communities' development, and it supports 
defense, fully funds it at the same level as theirs, and it applies a 
rule proven to work called the pay-as-you-go rule.

[[Page 5130]]

  This rule rigorously applied will do more for deficit reduction, 
exponentially more than the Republican resolution for all its huffing 
and puffing can ever purport to do. The right vote here is for the 
Spratt amendment or substitute, the Democratic substitute, and against 
the base bill, the Republican budget resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the end of the debate on the final 
amendment in the way of a substitute. I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the Democrats for coming 
forward with a substitute. It is never an easy thing to write a budget, 
as we all know. But I appreciate the fact that so many of our 
colleagues came forward with a budget.
  The prime argument that is being made here today is, first of all, 
that the Republicans seem to have caused the deficit, number one, and, 
number two, that the only way to get out of the deficit is to listen to 
the Democrats and increase taxes and increase spending.
  So let me just take those because that is basically what the argument 
is. First of all, with regard to the deficit. Now, maybe my memory is 
just fading but I am trying to remember back to before the world 
changed on September 10 of 2001, and we were running a surplus. We had 
more money in the Treasury, in the Federal Treasury than we were paying 
out, but we also discovered something that next morning.
  On September 11 of 2001 we discovered that we were running some 
deficits that we did not know about because the balance sheet did not 
give us much perspective on it. We were running a deficit in homeland 
security. We were not protecting the country. We were running a deficit 
in national defense. We were not able to project our strength around 
the world and protect freedom. We had a deep recession that we needed 
to climb out of that got a gut punch that morning and it lasted for 
quite a while longer.
  So we made some very deliberate decisions that next day and days 
after. In a bipartisan way we said, it is time to reduce taxes, 
stimulate the economy. It is time to protect the country, do whatever 
it takes. It is time to fund our national defense. It is time to 
protect our borders. It is time to do all of these things and let us 
not ask the question today how we are going to pay for it. Let us do 
it. And we did it. And you voted for every one of those bills, every 
single one.
  Do not shake your head. I will show you the votes. You voted for 
every single one of those bills to protect the country. You protected 
the country with every single one of your votes.
  So instead of coming down here today and blaming the Republicans for 
partisan purposes, why do you not remember the history you know, that 
it is Osama bin Laden that had as much to do with this deficit as 
anybody in this country. And instead of trying to get political points, 
you ought to just relax and try and figure out a way to get out of it.
  So this is how we decided to get out of it. We said, let us control 
spending. Let us stimulate the economy. And look at what has happened 
as a result of that. Not only did the tax cuts not get us into that 
deficit, but because of the work that we have done, we are climbing out 
of it, because we are protecting the country, because we are 
stimulating the economy and are creating jobs. Because of all of that 
we have the opportunity in this budget to reduce the deficit and build 
on the progress we had from last year.
  Last year we cut the deficit 20 percent, 20 percent in one year with 
a growing economy and controlling spending. And so we are starting on a 
glidepath, reducing that deficit every year. The deficit was not caused 
overnight. It is going to take some time to get it down and we have a 
plan to accomplish that.
  Now, I also want to put this deficit in some perspective. You have 
got to compare the deficit to something. You cannot just say $500 
billion is a lot of money or $200 billion is a lot of money. Of course 
it is a lot of money. But compared to what is it a lot of money? 
Compared to our economy is the measure that every single economist says 
you have got to compare it to.
  And as you look at the deficit as it is compared to our economy, you 
can see here that this year we are at 3.6 percent of our economy. If we 
stick to this belt tightening that is responsible over time, we will be 
able to get down to 1 percent of the economy.
  And why is that important? Well, first of all let me show you 
deficits in the past. This is not even the biggest deficit we have ever 
run. This is not the biggest deficit. Look back in 1946 after World War 
II, we were running a deficit that was 7 percent of our economy. Let us 
look to the year I first came to Congress. It was 3.9 percent of the 
economy back in 1990 when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I 
came to Congress. Let us look back to the early eighties when we 
complained. It was 5 percent.
  We are talking about an economy that is chugging along and growing. 
We are talking about a deficit plan that gets us below the rate of 
growth that we need to get to in order to have a responsible budget, 
and we need to pass this plan and get on with business. We do not need 
tax increases and we do not need more spending.
  Vote down the Spratt substitute.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, we are here today in this Chamber to consider 
a fantasy budget. It is ludicrous for the House leadership to move 
forward with this budget debate by ignoring the issues of the day 
merely to lock in huge tax cuts and offer damaging spending cuts to 
health care, education, veterans' services and much more. We need a 
better plan. The Democratic alternative that I support would reinstate 
the pay-as-you-go rule and balance the budget by 2012, just as the Baby 
Boomers begin their massive retirement, while maintaining significant 
support for our national defense, veterans programs, education, and 
health care, which will help grow our economy and create jobs.
  I do commend the President for recognizing the importance of the Milk 
Income Loss Compensation (MLLC) Program as a safety net for America's 
dairy farmers and including an extension of the program in the 
Administration's proposed budget. The Republican budget, however, 
recklessly zeros out this important program, placing struggling family 
farmers across this nation in peril.
  We know that the budget has not included the long-term cost of Iraq, 
which already cost the country $275 billion, the estimated $5 trillion 
in the next 20 years for privatizing Social Security, and the full 
costs of the tax cuts. in fact, it does not even include a full ten-
year budget report. The report lacks detail and leaves many programs 
vulnerable to steep cuts. I would expect a complete and full report in 
a document as important as the United States Budget. As the campaign in 
Iraq continues, our thoughts and prayers go out to the young men and 
women in uniform as well as to their families. May they complete their 
mission quickly and decisively so they can return home soon and safe.
  Our veterans are returning home as we speak. These are the fine men 
and women who fought to help bring democracy to Iraq. The budget plan 
calls for cuts in veterans' health care benefits and reduces medical 
personal by more than 3,000, along with cutting $9 million from other 
areas in the already overstretched VA. While the budget cuts to 
veterans' programs, Medicaid grants, and other important programs 
represent a very small amount of the overall budget, they will make a 
large difference to the families who depend on them.
  The projected budget deficit of $427 billion for FY06 is revolting. 
Perhaps the worst aspect of this budget is that it is not paid for. 
This is the classic recipe for exploding budget deficits as far as the 
eye can see; it's the height of fiscal irresponsibility occurring at 
exactly the wrong moment during our Nation's history when 80 million 
Americans, the so-called baby boomers, are rapidly approaching 
retirement. This is a demographic time bomb ready to explode. That is 
why the Republican budget proposal, in effect, constitutes taxation 
without representation because it will be our children and our 
grandchildren who will be asked to pay for this fiscal mess. I couldn't 
think of doing anything more unfair to them. The children are our 
future, and we owe it to them to give them a stable foundation.
  As the father of two little boys, I did not come to this Congress to 
leave a legacy of debt for them or future generations to climb out of. 
Our Democratic alternative, however, anticipates this demographic time 
bomb by achieving balance, while offering an economic

[[Page 5131]]

stimulus plan now that is fair, quick, and responsible. It supports our 
troops, but it also supports our nation's veterans, our seniors, and 
our children's education programs.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute. I would 
call on the leadership in the House to pull their budget resolution so 
that we can have an honest debate with honest figures, factoring in a 
realistic cost of the Iraq operation.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting 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 165, 
noes 264, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               AYES--165

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--264

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Capuano
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coble
     Delahunt
     Ryun (KS)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1515

  Messrs. GRAVES, CHOCOLA and COX changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of today, it is now in order to consider a period of final debate 
on the concurrent resolution.
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, during much of this debate, as I noted earlier, my 
Republican colleagues have taken the attitude that today's deficits 
were unforeseeable, unavoidable, beyond their control. But we warned 
here in 2001 and in every year thereafter when this resolution came 
before this House that the other side of the aisle was betting the 
budget on a blue sky forecast and leaving no margin for error. It is 
their policy choices made in the face of our objections that have 
brought us to the point we find ourselves today.
  In deficit this year by $427 billion, last year by $412 billion, the 
year before by $375 billion, each year has broken a record for a bigger 
and bigger deficit.

                              {time}  1515

  You control the House, you control the Senate, you control the White 
House; but you have not been able to control the budget, and you cannot 
escape responsibility for its dismal condition.
  As we stand here at the threshold of passing another budget 
resolution, I want to forewarn you, you will not take the deficit away, 
this resolution will not. You will not move the deficit down. It will 
only move it up and out, year after year after year to come.
  But do not take my word for it. I am partisan. I am the Democratic 
ranking member on this committee. Read what our neutral, nonpartisan 
budget shop, the Congressional Budget Office, has to say in a report 
that we request every year as a matter of law, analysis of the 
President's budgetary proposals for fiscal year 2006. Every Member has 
one of these in his or her office. You only have to read to the second 
page and look in the upper right-hand corner, and you will see there 
that the Congressional Budget Office says if the

[[Page 5132]]

President's budget is passed and implemented over the next 10 years, it 
will accumulate $5.135 trillion in additional debt of the United 
States. Table 1.1, it is laid out there.
  But as you all know and understand the way CBO does these estimates, 
they do not include all the costs. Since the President does not have 
costs in his budget for Afghanistan and Iraq after 2005, this 
resolution, this estimate does not assume it, even though CBO estimates 
that the additional costs will be $384 billion. It does not include a 
dime for fixing the alternative minimum tax, even though we are warned 
that by 2010 there will be 30 million taxpayers paying it rather than 
the regular tax schedule. And CBO says the cost of fixing it over 10 
years is $640 billion.
  It includes nothing for the President's signature initiative, the one 
he is pushing hardest and first and that is to partially privatize 
Social Security. The President has indicated himself that the cost of 
doing that, the additional deficits we will add if we do that between 
2009 and 2015 will be $754 billion.
  When you add all of these additional costs into the mix, then the 
debt incurred through 2016 will be $7 trillion. We will double the debt 
of the United States. If indeed we do what the President is proposing 
and allow workers to peel 4 percentage points off FICA and put those 
payments into a private account, we will incur $4.9 trillion in debt 
over the next 20 years. We will not see the budget balanced again in 
our lifetime.
  CBO is our forecaster, our neutral, nonpartisan budget shop. They are 
warning us this budget will not bring the deficit down. This budget 
will not do away with the deficit. It will make the deficit worse. 
Indeed, they tell us in this report, same page, page 2, that the 
President's budget, basically your budget, the President's budget, 
makes the situation $2 trillion worse than if we just left things on 
automatic pilot for current services.
  I would simply close by saying, vote against this resolution. Let us 
go back to the drawing board. We can do better.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If I might take just a brief moment in introducing my first speaker, 
I would like to just say on behalf of our side in particular but I 
think on behalf of the entire Congress, we always respect Members who 
go on to bigger and better things and today the President made a wise 
announcement in nominating the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) to 
become our U.S. Trade Representative.
  The applause meter made it look pretty good for confirmation there, I 
say to my very good friend, and he is my friend. He has been the vice 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and he has been a great wing 
man and personal friend to so many.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman), vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I promise I will not talk about trade. But I will talk about this 
budget. I want to start by saying this budget is not all the details. 
It is a blueprint. The authorizing committees, the appropriating 
committees, will fill out those details. But it is a blueprint that 
says something about who we are. And the three pillars in this budget, 
I think, reflect the principles and the priorities of this House.
  First, we believe that our country ought to be protected and strength 
is emphasized. That is our national security and our homeland security. 
Second is to be sure we have a strong economy. The tax relief has 
worked: 4.4 percent growth last year; 3 million jobs added to our 
economy in the last 21 months alone. The economy is strong and growing. 
We need to be sure that continues and that is why tax increases are not 
part of this budget.
  And, third, to be sure that we do as the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) says appropriately, keep our spending under 
control, we take responsible steps to restrain spending both in 
domestic discretionary and in the entitlement area.
  Those are the three pillars. By doing so, we reduce the deficit in 
half within 4 years. I commend the chairman for coming up with this 
budget.
  The process by which we got here also says something about who we 
are. I want to commend the ranking member from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) for his civility. I want to commend the members of the 
Committee on the Budget for the great debate that we had over the last 
month or so, I want to commend the Members on the floor who have had a 
great debate here, and I want to commend, finally, the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget. The gentleman from Iowa has conducted himself 
in the Committee on the Budget and here on the floor through an open, 
honest process where people have had the opportunity to say their 
peace. He has done a great job in listening carefully to the concerns 
of so many of us in this conference and in the entire Congress to be 
sure we come up with a document that does indeed reflect the 
priorities, I believe, of our House, the strength of our country, the 
growth of our economy, and getting spending under control.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this budget which is, 
although just a blueprint, the appropriate statement of who we are and 
does indeed get us to the point where we are reducing our deficit, 
which is so important, but also funding the key priorities in our 
country. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader of the 
House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
South Carolina for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his great 
leadership in putting together a budget that is a statement of our 
values, that is balanced in terms of our priorities and balanced 
fiscally. He has always conducted the process of creating a budget in a 
way that has informed Members, has done so with great dignity and great 
fairness and great respect for all points of view. I wish we would all 
join in acknowledging the great leadership of the gentleman from South 
Carolina, our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1994, the first item in the Republicans' Contract 
with America was the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Republicans pledged 
``to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, 
requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families 
and businesses.'' More than 10 years later, an out-of-touch Republican 
majority has taken fiscal responsibility to a new low. It is clear that 
in the 10 years the Republicans have become addicted to deficits.
  The budget deficit for this year is a record $427 billion. The 
February budget deficit, my colleagues, of $114 billion for the month 
of February, a deficit of $114 billion, is the highest monthly deficit 
ever and the first time it ever went over $100 billion in one month. In 
2001, President Clinton left President Bush with a projected $5.6 
trillion in surplus. In just 4 years, President Bush has turned that 
record surplus into a record deficit of nearly $4 trillion, a $10 
trillion swing in the wrong direction.
  Make no mistake, these deficits are the direct result of Republican 
policies, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, a refusal to pay as you go, 
poor planning for a war of choice in Iraq. The list goes on and on and 
on. America is awash in red ink because of Republican budget 
irresponsibility.
  Tragically, this Republican budget is yet another missed opportunity 
to return to fiscal discipline. Not only is this budget fiscally 
irresponsible; the Republican budget is dishonest. It does not cut the 
deficit in half as Republicans claim. In fact, it makes the deficit 
worse. Republicans leave out the realistic cost of the war, the cost of 
expiring tax provisions, the true cost of fixing the alternative 
minimum tax and the cost of any changes to Social Security. The budget 
is dishonest in another way: it fails to show any deficit figures at 
all after 2010.

[[Page 5133]]

  In our New Partnership for America's Future, Democrats have made a 
commitment to honor the value of accountability, including eliminating 
deficit spending and holding those in power accountable for their 
actions with a high ethical standard. Democrats support honest, 
accountable budgets that pay as you go. The Democratic alternative 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina achieves balance by 2012. 
The Republican budget never reaches balance. It heaps tons of debt onto 
our children and grandchildren, and it will eventually lower our 
standard of living. We cannot let that happen to our country. And on 
top of all of that, the Republican budget undermines the solvency of 
Social Security.
  While Republicans ignore the real crisis of ballooning budget 
deficits, the President falsely claims there is a crisis in Social 
Security. But just because the President says it does not make it so. 
He is simply wrong. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, Social Security's trust fund will grow every year until a high 
of $8.3 trillion in 2032 and continues to be solvent until 2052.
  I want to call your attention to this chart, my colleagues. The left 
bar represents the deficit in the general fund between now and 2035, a 
staggering $15 trillion. The Bush administration has taken us onto a 
trajectory of reckless budgeting that will take us to $15 trillion in 
deficit in 2035. From 2006 to 2035, $15 trillion in deficit.
  This bar here, the second bar, Social Security, 2006 to 2080, twice 
as long, more than twice as long, the Social Security deficit is $2 
trillion. It is clear that there would be plenty of money to deal with 
the Social Security trust fund if the President were not using the 
Social Security trust fund as a slush fund to give tax cuts to the 
wealthiest people in America. Instead of doing that, we have a moral 
and legal obligation to pay back to the trust fund the money the 
President has taken out. We cannot let the President do this.
  By running enormous deficits, the Republicans want to force the 
government to break its promises to the elderly. How on Earth are they 
going to pay the Social Security trust fund back if they have gone 
broke on the other side by running up these deficits in the general 
fund? Democrats will keep America's promises to our seniors. Democrats 
have done it before, and we will do it again. When Bill Clinton was 
President, we had 3 years of surpluses.

                              {time}  1530

  And with the surpluses, imagine, think of it. Zero deficits. $427 
billion in deficit for this year, over $100 billion in deficit for the 
month of February alone, this year. And when President Clinton was 
President, the 3 years at the end of his term, we had zero deficits. 
And with the surpluses that were produced he was able to pay nearly 
$400 billion off of our indebtedness, strengthening the solvency of 
Social Security.
  Likewise the Democratic alternative that was offered today included 
pay-as-you-go rules that would block new tax or spending legislation 
that is not paid for.
  Not only is the Republican budget fiscally reckless and dishonest, it 
is morally irresponsible. The leaders of five Protestant denominations, 
the Episcopal Church USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 
the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ and the United 
Methodist Church recently called President Bush's budget unjust. They 
reminded us of the words of the prophet, Micah, who said, ``What does 
the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love mercy and to walk 
humbly with your God?'' Does this budget do justice for Americans? You 
be the judge. Is it doing justice to our children to give tax cuts to 
people making more than $500,000 a year, while underfunding Head Start, 
No Child Left Behind, student loans and grants and other education 
initiatives by $2.5 billion? Is that doing justice to our children? Is 
it doing justice to our communities to give tax cuts to the wealthy 
while funding for community police and local fire fighters who are 
vital to our homeland security by cutting them by $280 million? Is that 
justice? Is it doing justice to those who serve in uniform to give 
those tax cuts while underfunding health care benefits for veterans by 
$14 billion short of what is needed over the next 5 years? Is that 
justice for our veterans? And is it doing justice to give tax cuts to 
the wealthy while launching a shameful attack on the poor? This budget 
cuts $20 billion from Medicaid, a cut that Governors, on a bipartisan 
basis, oppose, and which the other body today has just rejected.
  Let us hear it for the other body. It undermines the Community 
Development Block Grant Initiative with all considered restructuring 
and a massive 35 percent cut. It makes huge cuts to the earned income 
tax which takes 2 million children, lifts 2 million children out of 
poverty. But this budget, the Republican budget, makes cuts there. No. 
The Republican budget does not do justice, it does great damage to our 
country. Instead of being a statement of our values, the Republican 
budget is an assault on our values. And it is a blueprint for financial 
disaster.
  I urge my colleagues to return to fiscal discipline, to honor our 
values and to oppose this disgraceful Republican budget. Thank you, my 
colleagues. Vote ``no'' on this budget.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle) is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, for those of you who have read the prophet 
Micah, I know that he was not speaking to the Congressional Budget 
Office. He was speaking to the human heart, and that is the biggest 
difference between the policies that we have before us today. We 
believe that the individual should be free and should be allowed to 
determine their destiny. We do not believe that government should make 
decisions that people can make better for themselves. We do not believe 
that money equals compassion. We do not believe that money often equals 
success. Money is not getting us results. And all that is offered on 
the other side is more money, more spending, higher taxes, more 
government, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more laws, more 
politicians making decisions that individuals and families and 
communities should be making for themselves in the freest nation on the 
face of the Earth. And that is why our budget calls for strengthening 
our country, growing our economy, giving power to individuals, and 
recognizing that if we do not control the size of government, 
government will take our freedom, and it will not succeed the way we 
want to be able to allow people to succeed.
  My friends, government is growing out of control. What we are asking 
for in this budget is something that we should do every day in 
Washington, and that is look at the results of the programs that we 
have put in place. Government, we believe, should be there to help 
people who cannot help themselves. And oftentimes, we have invented 
more government to try and take the place of families, take the place 
of neighbors, take the place of communities in order to solve problems. 
And too often we are not getting the results for all the extra money 
that we are spending. And too often, in this well of the House, we 
debate between percentages and dollar increases as if, if I spend $6 
and you spend $7 you must care $1 more. And that is not the way our 
debate should evolve. Our debate should be based on results. We need a 
results revolution in government. We need to look at the results we are 
getting from the programs we have put in place. If they are not 
working, we should reform them, and that is what this budget calls for. 
It says we are going to slow the rate of growth. It gives instructions 
to the committees to go through the budget of the Federal Government 
and look for ways to ensure that programs deliver the results that we 
require in order to help people who are truly in need and, at the same 
time, make sure we are defending the country, growing the economy and 
controlling spending.
  Just like last year, the House will lead. We led last year. We led 
when we got to a balanced budget in the late 1990s, and we will lead 
again today by

[[Page 5134]]

passing what I believe is the strongest budget, the best blueprint, to 
get out of deficits, to make sure that we get results from the programs 
and the dollars that we are spending and make sure we get back on a 
path to freedom in this country.
  I urge adoption of this budget.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I will oppose this ill-advised budget 
proposal and I urge my colleagues to join me. Every year, we set our 
priorities through our budget. The priorities in this budget are all 
wrong. Our priorities should focus on helping those who need help 
before we begin to help those who don't. However, although we may not 
all agree with these concerns, one priority which we can all agree on 
is that we must reduce the deficit. Incredibly, the proposal before us 
does absolutely nothing to accomplish this goal. Despite all the 
assurances I have heard from my colleagues and the Administration, this 
legislation actually increases the deficit!
  With record deficit levels, how is it possible that the majority has 
completely ignored fiscal responsibility? By passing tax givebacks, 
over half of which go to households earning over $1 million--that's 0.2 
percent of the population. Although many of us find this appalling, 
unfortunately, it has become predictable behavior of the majority 
party.
  How can we justify this fiscal recklessness to our children and 
grandchildren? How can we justify it to hard-working Americans who live 
paycheck to paycheck, unable to save money for emergencies or even just 
to see the doctor? Can we honestly look them in the eye and tell them 
that we are more concerned with millionaires and billionaires than with 
struggling middle-class Americans, brave soldiers, the sick, the poor 
and the hungry? I, for one, dread the thought. Yet, that is the message 
this budget sends. And, although my colleagues try to cloud its 
destruction with their transparent gimmicks, the message shines through 
crystal clear.
  The resolution before us provides for total tax giveaways of $106 
billion over five years. Every child in America knows that you must 
save first before you splurge. They know that they must patiently fill 
their piggy banks with coins until they have enough to buy that toy 
they have been eyeing for weeks.
  My colleagues do not seem to understand this common notion of 
balancing income and spending. They continue to splurge on our national 
credit card, racking up astronomical bills which our children and 
grandchildren will be obliged to pay. Soon they will ask for their 
fourth credit increase in four years, to enable the continuation of 
this reckless abuse of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
  The pay-as-you-go rule, or PAYGO, would solve the issue of unlimited 
spending by requiring new spending to be offset in other areas of the 
budget. Again, common sense would dictate that tax giveaways, totaling 
$106 billion over five years, would count as new spending. The money is 
being removed from the country's revenue without replacement. The PAYGO 
rule would essentially require us to stop and think about how we are 
going to pay for things before we hastily enact them and end up in this 
ill-fated fiscal jam. Not surprisingly, however, many of my collegues 
have insisted on exempting the billions of dollars in tax givebacks 
from the PAYGO rule. They do so without an explanation of how they plan 
to restore the lost revenue. There is no good reason, particularly when 
we are running record deficits, to reject the very successful practice 
we used in the 1990's to produce record surpluses.
  Unlike the federal government, states are not permitted to spend 
without restraint. States cannot run up their credit card bills or 
repeatedly increase their credit limits. Yet, this budget increases the 
financial burden on the states. The federal government has an agreement 
with the states--we will help pay for programs which we mandate--
programs vital to America, including education, healthcare and job 
training. And we have been successful in our partnership with the 
states, ensuring that millions of Americans are able to go to school, 
to the doctor and to work.
  However, in their spending schemes, my Republican colleagues neglect 
our obligation to the states. More and more, states are picking up the 
tab for unpaid federal bills.
  At a time when states are struggling under the burden of Medicare 
cost shifts and a growing number of uninsured, I find it particularly 
disturbing that the Republicans have chosen to cut funding for 
Medicaid--a critical safety net for our most vulnerable citizens.
  The Republicans are specifically proposing to cut an unprecedented 
$60 billion from the program, which is the equivalent of completely 
eliminating the Children's Health Insurance Program over 10 years.
  These cuts would roll back health care coverage and protections for 
millions of Americans including the elderly in nursing homes, 
individuals with disabilities, infants and working families. Also, 
hospitals, physicians and other safety net providers will face payment 
reductions threatening their viability--and these reductions will mean 
more lost jobs in our communities.
  The assault on the environment also continues, including a massive, 
unjustified cut to the Superfund program. The Inspector General has 
identified, and senior EPA officials have acknowledged, that in FY2003 
there was a funding shortfall of $174.9 million, and it has been widely 
reported that the funding shortfall for FY2004 reached approximately 
$250 million. This leaves dozens of highly contaminated Superfund sites 
where cleanups are being delayed due to inadequate funding. Public 
health is endangered and local economic redevelopment hurt, yet this 
budget irresponsibly seeks to reduce cleanup funding.
  These are just two examples of critical programs this budget neglects 
and two examples of why I will oppose this legislation and I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the Republican budget.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
FY06 budget resolution, and reluctant opposition to the Democratic 
alternative.
  Unfortunately, I do not believe that the choices before us today 
adequately confront the serious deficiencies in our budget process. The 
congressional budget process is broken, and badly in need of real 
reforms that will reinstate fiscal responsibility into Congress. The 
Blue Dog Coalition, of which I am a member, has introduced a twelve-
step plan that takes the necessary first steps toward reforming our 
budget process.
  While I support many of the provisions in the Democratic budget, 
including a partial restoration of ``pay-as-you-go'' [PAYGO] rules and 
level funding for domestic priorities such as education, veterans' 
health care, and local law enforcement, I am disappointed that this 
alternative did not include any of the Blue Dog budget process reforms.
  The Blue Dog twelve-step plan would stop Congress's recent borrow-
and-spend practices by reinstating PAYGO rules for the entire budget, 
including spending and revenue measures. Budget enforcement rules that 
apply to only certain parts of the budget will not have a significant 
impact on our rising deficits, as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan mentioned in his recent testimony before the House Budget 
Committee.
  Additionally, the Blue Dog budget process reform plan would: create a 
``rainy day'' fund for emergency spending, which forty-five states 
currently have; require a roll call vote on any bill calling for more 
than $50 million in new spending; repeal the House rule that allows the 
House to avoid a direct, up-or-down vote on debt limit increases; and 
require cost estimates by the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] for 
every bill that Congress votes on.
  These reasonable, common-sense reforms are necessary for a 
functioning budget process and long overdue. The fiscal situation in 
our country is now out of control, and only tough budget discipline 
will get us back on track.
  On February 17, 2004, the national debt of the United States exceeded 
$7 trillion for the first time in our country's history. One year 
later, our national debt is $7.7 trillion. In the past year, our 
country has added $700 billion to our national debt.
  The out-of-control rise in our national debt over the last year is 
just another sign of the astonishing fiscal turnaround that our country 
has experienced over the last four years, and another sign of the 
terrible fiscal position that we now find ourselves in.
  In 2001, we had ten-year projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion [2002-
2011]. Now, over that same time period, we have likely ten-year 
deficits of $3.9 trillion. That's a $9.5 trillion reversal in our ten-
year fiscal outlook.
  Whether intentional or otherwise, our country's current fiscal 
policies are depriving the Federal Government of future revenue at a 
time when we ought to be preparing for an unprecedented demographic 
shift that will strain Social Security and Medicare. Our current fiscal 
irresponsibility will eventually land squarely on the shoulders of our 
children and grandchildren, who will be forced to pay back the debt we 
are accumulating today with interest.
  This ``debt tax'' that we are imposing on our children and 
grandchildren cannot be repealed, and can only be reduced if we take 
responsible steps now to improve our situation.
  Both parties need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to bring 
our budget back into balance so we can avoid the higher long-term 
interest rates and weakened dollar that are a consequence of rising 
deficits and a high national debt.
  This fiscal year alone, interest on the national debt is expected to 
rise to $178 billion,

[[Page 5135]]

and the administration projects that that figure will increase to $211 
billion during the next fiscal year.
  To put that figure in perspective, projected interest on our national 
debt next year will be $75 billion more than projected spending on 
education, public health, health research, and veterans' benefits 
combined [$138 billion].
  In addition to assuming an ever-larger share of our annual budgets, 
the interest on our debt, and the debt itself, is increasing our 
reliance on foreign borrowers, which will weaken our position in the 
world and increase the risk that another nation will be able to assert 
greater leverage over America.
  Finally, our deficits and debt threaten the Social Security and 
Medicare programs that have lifted so many of our seniors out of 
poverty and helped sustain the strongest middle class in history.
  Unfortunately, the administration's FY06 budget, which was released 
last month, would spend $2.6 trillion of the projected Social Security 
surplus over the next ten years.
  With a projected 75 year unfunded liability of $3.7 trillion, both 
parties in Congress need to work together to address Social Security's 
solvency problem.
  It is time for Congress to stop playing games with our national debt, 
with Social Security, and with our kids and grandkids' futures and take 
a commonsense, bipartisan approach to solve our budget problems.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the 
Republican majority's ill-sighted budget resolution.
  This budget goes beyond bad all the way to dangerous. It's dangerous 
for our country, and it's dangerous for Florida. This budget cuts the 
COPS program by 96 percent, a program which has put over 7,000 police 
officers on Florida streets. Their budget cuts more than $40 million 
from homeland security formula grants in the state of Florida alone. 
The President is clearly unaware there is more to defending our 
homeland than invading foreign countries.
  But the addled decision-making in the Republican budget doesn't stop 
there. The Majority is proposing to decimate countless invaluable 
social welfare programs from Medicaid to Head Start and Even Start. It 
cuts almost $200 million in funding for Florida housing, employment 
counseling, transitional assistance, and small business loans. This 
budget also includes significant cuts to veterans' health care. What a 
great message to send to our troops: Thanks for serving your country, 
but now you're on your own.
  The Republican budget also fails our nation's youth. The budget cuts 
TRIO funding by over $700,000 in my district, and over $10 million just 
in the state of Florida. These costs will result in a loss of over 
11,000 students to the TRIO program in the state of Florida. Without 
these programs, these students will not make it to college. This is not 
a prediction, it's a fact.
  I meet with representatives from various organizations in my district 
every day. Yesterday, I met with 31 people from different types of 
organizations. Every one of them told me their programs are being cut, 
and they don't know how they are going to survive because it is going 
to affect their programs ranging from children to the elderly to people 
without housing.
  I've met with local officials telling me the same thing. These budget 
cuts are forcing them to seek alternative means of revenue. In other 
words, taxes. I don't know if citizens will be taxed here in Washington 
or in Ft. Pierce or Riviera Beach, but somewhere along the line we are 
going to have to learn to share the responsibility for giving our 
communities the support they need.
  Where will all this money supposedly trimmed from the national budget 
go? Well, clearly not to balance the budget or solve the federal 
deficit crisis. The Republican budget will result in a spending deficit 
of $376 billion in 2006 alone. Unbelievably, this figure does not 
include the costs of several ill-conceived Republican initiatives such 
as the costs of privatizing social security or the President's war in 
Iraq.
  We have all heard President Bush tout his grand scheme to privatize 
social security, yet not only has he put forth no coherent plan to do 
so, but he has failed to include the financial requirements of such a 
plan. Vice President Cheney has suggested ``transition costs'' of up to 
$2 trillion or more. How can this cost not be included in any budget 
proposal?
  But there are alternatives. Both the Congressional Black Caucus and 
Representative Spratt have suggested sane alternatives to the 
Republican madness. Both of these budgets represent an approach to 
meeting the needs of regular Americans while maintaining the fiscal 
responsibility this nation needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I was going to stand here and tell you that the 
Republicans are balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, but they 
are not balancing this budget on anyone's backs because this budget 
doesn't reach that far! The people that are hurt by this budget are not 
only the poor but the average American. As Members of Congress, we have 
a solemn responsibility to protect the welfare of all our nation's 
citizens, and the Republican budget fails to meet that responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this damaging and devastating attack 
on the social welfare of this country masquerading as a budget.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Spratt 
Substitute and in opposition to H. Con. Res. 95, the House Republican 
budget. A budget is a blueprint of values and priorities--a road map 
for where we want to move the country. It is no surprise that the 
Republican budget for fiscal year 2006 is more of the same: continued 
tax cuts for the wealthy paid for by slashing programs that Rhode 
Islanders depend on. However, the Spratt Substitute contains thoughtful 
policies to balance the budget by 2012 without individual tax rate 
increases or harmful cuts to security, health care, education, 
veterans' benefits, and other programs that improve the quality of life 
for Rhode Island's working families.
  While the Republicans claim that budget cuts are needed to return to 
fiscal discipline, they forget their own policies caused today's 
financial problems. Without the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent 
of Americans enacted since 2001, our nation's fiscal health would be 
much rosier, and the neediest and most vulnerable Americans would not 
be forced to sacrifice. Their fiscal year 2006 budget proposal 
continues to move in the wrong direction, and next year's deficit will 
likely be the largest in history, with at least $400 billion added to 
the national credit card.
  How does this blueprint make us safer? While the Department of 
Homeland Security receives an overall increase in funding, the budget 
largely follows the President's request, which cuts needed resources 
for the first responders who risk their lives every day to protect us. 
The Spratt Substitute contains $1.1 billion more than the Republican 
budget for vital law enforcement programs such as COPS, FIRE grants, 
and Byrne Grants. These programs provide Rhode Island's police and fire 
departments with the equipment and training to keep us safe.
  How does this blueprint make us healthier? The Republican budget 
requires $20 billion in cuts to Medicaid. This reduction will 
jeopardize a critical health care safety net for seniors, children and 
people with disabilities and shift more of the burden to states. 
Medicaid cuts would result in $80 million less for Rhode Island. The 
loss of federal funding places an enormous burden on states like Rhode 
Island, by pressuring them to cut eligibility for Medicaid. My state 
has successfully leveraged federal Medicaid dollars and currently 
offers coverage to many vulnerable, low-income pregnant women, parents 
of young children, and other groups not included in the federal 
mandate. Without Medicaid, these people would likely join the 
increasing ranks of the uninsured. Lacking proper preventative care, 
these patients will be forced to go to emergency rooms, leading to long 
waits and higher costs for everyone. These cuts will also threaten 
programs such as Rite Share, an employer buy-in program, funded in part 
by Medicaid. The Republican Medicaid cuts are restored in the Spratt 
Substitute.
  How does this blueprint prepare children for the future? Again, the 
Republican budget matches the President's proposal to eliminate 48 
education programs that provide assistance with vocational education, 
education technology, civic education, and school counselors. In 
contrast, the Spratt Substitute provides $4.5 billion in additional 
funding for No Child Left Behind and other valuable programs such as 
student loans and school lunches, giving students the resources to 
succeed.
  How does this blueprint honor those who serve our country in uniform? 
Perhaps most egregiously during this time of war, the Republicans want 
to cut veterans' health care by $14 billion over five years, impose new 
fees, and increase copayments for veterans' health care, adding an 
undue burden to those who have served their country so bravely. The 
Spratt Substitute provides $17 billion over five years to provide 
veterans the services they have earned through their patriotism and 
sacrifice.
  The Republican blueprint does not make us safer or healthier, prepare 
children for the future, or honor veterans. By continuing failed tax 
policies while cutting effective programs that Rhode Islanders depend 
on, their proposal is a misguided and unjust starting point. As 
Democrats show, it is possible to create a realistic blueprint that is 
fiscally responsible

[[Page 5136]]

and builds on the needs of the American people. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Spratt Substitute and reject H. Con. Res. 95.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution is a 
body blow to Oregon and the country. I have heard from constituents, 
school teachers, local government officials, medical professionals, 
housing advocates and many others throughout the communities in my 
district, all with detailed stories about how this budget will have 
devastating impacts.
  The budget cuts both ways. First, by exploding the federal deficit, 
adding $376 billion to the national debt and spending every penny of 
the $185 billion Social Security trust fund surplus coming in during 
the year. Then, by eliminating and reducing key domestic priorities, 
such as cutting $4.3 billion of education programs, slashing $1.5 
billion for affordable housing and development programs, and 
underfunding veterans' programs by nearly $800 million.
  How do we face both increased deficits and program cuts? By 
continuing to focus on tax cuts for those who need them the least. This 
is unnecessary and, frankly, dangerous as we continue to create an 
abyss between the haves and have-nots in society, and are putting our 
financial markets on edge by borrowing trillions from foreign 
investors. This is not a budget representative of the priorities and 
values of Oregonians.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican budget. It's dishonest. It's immoral. It's wrong for 
America's future.
  Republicans dishonestly proclaim their budget is fiscally 
responsible. The only way their numbers work out is if you use slick 
accounting gimmicks or fuzzy math.
  Let me give you some examples of their clever sleight of hand:
  The Republicans' top priority to privatize Social Security through 
private accounts will cost billions of dollars. You'd think that'd be 
accounted for in this budget? No.
  The billions of dollars that will be needed for the Iraq war. In the 
budget? No.
  The cost to our children of extending the massive Bush tax cuts to 
the wealthy that will balloon our massive deficit? You guessed it. Not 
in the budget.
  Even as they leave out all this massive spending, Republicans still 
claim fiscal responsibility. Don't be fooled. They're lying to the 
American public. The true costs of this budget are far higher than 
Republicans claim and our children and grandchildren will pay the tab 
for this deceit for decades to come.
  This budget isn't just dishonest--it's immoral. It imposes deep cuts 
to vital programs that Americans depend upon.
  As our weak economy is forcing more people to rely on Medicaid's 
health safety net, Republicans are cutting the program by $20 billion. 
Income support programs that keep low-income families afloat 
economically are being axed. Some 48 education programs, vital 
environmental protections, community development grants and veteran's 
health care programs are being gutted.
  If you're an average American family this will affect you and your 
economic security. But, while you're tightening your belt watching 
funding for child's education and your family's health care diminish, 
billions of dollars are going to big business and special interests. 
While every other priority is sacrificed in the GOP budget, billions of 
dollars more are being funneled into the bloated defense contracts or 
frittered away in corporate tax giveaways.
  Mr. Chairman, the federal budget is supposed to be a statement of our 
nation's priorities. This budget is a punch line to a sick joke being 
played on the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this dishonest, immoral and 
irresponsible budget.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern about 
the current state of our Nation's budget woes.
  I've been running the family ranch for several years and I know what 
it means to work within a budget. You may have to count your pennies, 
but you spend your money where it matters the most to you and your 
community.
  This Administration proposes to cut funding for agricultural programs 
in addition to denying promised benefits to veterans and military 
widows. These are the wrong priorities for our country. We cannot pass 
the burden of the debt onto the backs of our farmers and veterans.
  Agriculture is the backbone of this great nation. I have always said 
that there are only two things that can bring this country down--our 
dependence on other countries to produce our food and our dependence on 
foreign oil. Agriculture must become a real part of our renewable 
energy supply. Research and education are the only way we can grow and 
develop these new technologies. This is the worst time to cut 
agriculture research programs.
  Desperate times call for desperate measures, but turning our backs on 
our country's service personnel and veterans isn't desperate, it's 
crazy. We need to put our resources toward meeting the promises we have 
made to our veterans, servicemen, and their families--in rural 
Colorado, that means making sure that veterans don't have to drive five 
hours to get the health care they were promised.
  I will never support breaking the promise to the brave men and women 
who served our country in the name of freedom and democracy.


                         blue dog 12 point plan

  I am a proud member of the Congressional Blue Dog Coalition, a group 
of Democrats that fights for fiscal responsibility. Fiscal 
responsibility means spending your money where it matters most. We can 
do that without increasing taxes.
  First off--our Nation's taxpayers deserve an honest budget that gives 
an account of all future spending. If this Administration wants to 
privatize Social Security, then the budget should have included the 
trillions of dollars it would take to change the system.
  Secondly--we need to reduce the deficit. As a farmer, I know this 
firsthand--you can't spend money you don't have. Congress is already 
facing a $589 billion dollar deficit--increasing the amount of our 
national debt to $1 trillion dollars. The Blue Dog Coalition created a 
12 Point Reform Plan to cure the Nation's addiction to deficit 
spending. For starters, the Blue Dog Plan would require that any new 
spending would have to be paid for. This common-sense rule, ``pay-as-
you-go'' is mandatory in Colorado. In the 1990's, ``pay-as-you-go'' 
brought the budget into surplus and is supported by Federal Reserve 
Chairman Alan Greenspan. Our plan also includes a provision for a 
``rainy day fund'' in case there is a need for emergency spending.
  Neither the Administration's budget, nor the Democratic alternative, 
incorporate a single component of the Blue Dog 12 Point Plan. As 
Members of Congress, we must discuss a budget that has included input 
from both parties. It is for that reason, I voted ``No'' on both budget 
proposals. I will not vote for an increase in taxes. And I will not 
vote to cut the programs that matter to our communities.
  The Federal Government and this Congress need to take a lesson from 
small business owners and get back to creating a budget where all the 
numbers add up.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the federal budget should be a statement of 
our country's values. It should reflect the priorities of the American 
people: good jobs, safe communities, quality education, and access to 
health care. The Republican budget, H. Con. Res. 95, is not aligned 
with these priorities; and I, therefore, rise in opposition to its 
passage.
  Like President Bush's budget proposal, the Republican budget calls 
for sweeping cuts in mandatory and non-defense discretionary spending 
that could harm the effectiveness of vital Federal programs.
  Perhaps in an effort to obfuscate the truth, House Republicans fail 
to provide the specificity the President does in his budget, so we are 
left to wonder which programs may get slashed or eliminated.
  But we do know this: the Republican budget resolution instructs 
various House committees to make almost $69 billion in cuts to 
mandatory spending programs. The Energy and Commerce Committee, for 
example, would be forced to find $20 billion in savings over five 
years. All indications are that Medicaid, which provides health 
coverage for more than 52 million low-income Americans, will take the 
brunt of the cuts.
  The proposed budget will also cut veterans' health care by $14 
billion, education programs by $2.5 billion and clean water programs by 
$700 million. It will slash economic development programs by $1.5 
billion, possibly leading to the elimination of the extraordinarily 
successful Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The CDBG 
provides Federal funding for locally-identified projects, like 
affordable housing, economic redevelopment, roads and public libraries.
  The Republican budget, in fact, neither adequately funds our national 
priorities, nor does it offer a strategy for achieving fiscal 
discipline. The resolution calls for a $376 billion deficit in FY 2006, 
but the deficit is worse than it appears. In calculating the deficit, 
House Republicans use surpluses in the Social Security trust funds to 
offset spending on other programs. If the Social Security surpluses are 
not counted, the projected deficit for FY 2006 would be $564.5 billion.
  Democrats, on the other hand, will be offering an alternative 
proposal today that reflects the priorities of the American people. The 
Democratic budget provides $4.5 billion more for education and training 
programs, $1.6 billion more for veterans programs, $2 billion

[[Page 5137]]

more for community and regional development and $1.1 billion more for 
law enforcement and justice programs. It does all this while 
instituting a plan to balance the budget by 2012 and protecting 
Medicaid and Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the Republicans have chosen to neglect 
the needs of the many in order to maintain and extend tax cuts for the 
elite few; it is clear where their priorities lie. I urge my colleagues 
to align their priorities with those of the American people, and vote 
against the Republican budget resolution and for the Democratic 
alternative.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
budget. The budget should encourage fiscal, personal and social 
responsibility at the same time it moves us further down the road to 
making. opportunity real for people. In that sense, it should reflect 
the values and priorities of Americans. But by deepening income 
inequality and raising the barriers for those working to do better, 
this budget does neither. If anything, it reflects priorities that are 
out of step with ordinary Americans.
  By calling for $1.8 trillion in tax cuts, primarily to the wealthiest 
Americans, the president's budget compromises both our ability to face 
our most pressing challenges and strengthen the social safety net that 
might rescue those living in poverty. Experts estimate that over the 
next 75 years, the cost of the tax cuts for the top 1 percent of 
households alone is nearly equivalent to the shortfall in Social 
Security--this at a time when another 1.3 million Americans fell into 
poverty last year.
  And with this budget's cuts to Medicaid, job training, veterans 
health care, and child care will only exacerbate those startling 
figures. The decision to eviscerate Medicaid by as much as $20 billion 
will leave many low-income families with nowhere to turn for medical 
care, and many seniors with no way to afford long-term care. Its growth 
in recent years is simply a reflection of its success in providing care 
for the thousands of Americans who would otherwise have joined the 
ranks of the uninsured during the economic downturn.
  And states are already struggling to keep up. This year, the governor 
in my state of Connecticut proposed increased co-payments and premiums 
for families receiving SCHIP. If the president succeeds in cutting 
Medicaid, there will be no way for states to make up the shortfall. We 
cannot let Medicaid fall victim to its own success.
  Mr. Chairman, the cost of this Administration's poor decisions should 
not be borne by those least able to afford it. Budgets are moral 
documents. They should promote, first and foremost, the common good of 
the Nation. And turning our backs on that now as this budget does is 
not only bad policy--it is immoral.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for this budget 
resolution. It does reflect the priorities of the Republican 
leadership, but I do not think those are the right priorities for our 
country.
  Over the last five years the federal budget has gone from projected 
surpluses to undeniable deficits. The result has been to reverse a 
decade of progress that saw the budget go from the $290 billion deficit 
when President Clinton took office to a surplus of $236 billion in 
2000, which was where things stood when the current President Bush came 
to office.
  Unfortunately, the combination of recession, the need to increase 
spending for defense and homeland security, and excessive and 
unbalanced tax cuts have taken us to the largest deficits in our 
Nation's history--a $375 billion deficit two years ago, a deficit of 
$412 billion last year, and for this year, according to the Bush 
Administration itself, a deficit of $427 billion. That is three record-
setting years in a row.
  And, regrettably, the budget resolution before us reflects the 
proposals of the Bush Administration--and we know, or should know, what 
that means.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, following 
the path suggested by the Bush Administration and this budget 
resolution will add $5.135 trillion to our national debt over the next 
10 years. I do not think this is the right way to go.
  That is why I voted for the more responsible and better balanced 
alternative offered by the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, 
Mr. Spratt.
  That alternative budget combined a balanced budget, real budget 
discipline, and protection for Social Security while still providing 
the same resources for Defense and Homeland Security as the Republican 
budget.
  The alternative also would have provided more resources for important 
priorities and would have laid the basis for more responsible tax 
policy. It was better fiscally and better in terms of the education of 
our children, the health care of our veterans, the development of our 
communities, and the quality of our environment.
  It would have brought spending in the domestic discretionary accounts 
back to baseline, that is, to current services, enough to prevent them 
from being eroded away by inflation, but not any significant increase.
  Unfortunately, that alternative was not adopted, and the only 
remaining choice is to vote for or against the Republican leadership's 
proposal. Because I am convinced that it is not right for our 
communities or our country, I must vote against it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Republican's 2006 budget 
resolution makes the wrong choices for our Nation. It reflects skewed 
priorities and runs counter to our deepest held beliefs. The budget 
embraces disastrous economic policies while at the same time failing to 
put forward a vision of what the United States should be. What America 
needs instead is responsible policies that reflect our values, help 
bring our Nation together, and invests in the future by expanding 
opportunity. Many programs important to Georgia are cut, including $800 
million from the Centers for Disease Control, funding for firefighters 
by 30 percent and $26.7 million in Homeland Security Funding for 
Georgia. These programs provide front-line protections to Georgia 
communities. Further, this budget hurts my state's military 
installations and veterans by cutting $60 million from last year's 
spending for military construction projects and cutting healthcare for 
2 million Georgian veterans.
  Communities are harmed by cutting Community Development Block Grants 
(CDBG) by $211.9 million over the next four years. Representatives from 
the cities of Riverdale and Powder Springs told me this week that their 
plans for building community centers depend on funding of CDBG. The 
budget will also eliminate the HOPE VI program, which is revitalizing 
public housing in Georgia. The Section 8 housing vouchers cut would 
remove 8,700 families from the program in Georgia.
  This budget proposes to cut vital domestic investments and services 
for the middle class and poor, while continuing to accumulate huge 
budget deficits. Education is cut by $366.8 million affecting 91,050 
Georgia children by under funding the No Child Left Behind Act. TRIO 
programs by almost $13 million for Georgia, affecting 13,000 students 
and vocational and adult education in Georgia would be reduced by 
$173.7 million from 2006-2010. Healthcare would be affected by an 
estimated $7.9 million cut to Southern Regional Hospital. These 
Medicaid cuts hurt Clayton County where 24.2 percent of the population 
in 2003 utilized Medicaid. About 10 percent of Clayton County is below 
the Federal Poverty Level.
  Despite these cuts, every Georgia family's share of the national debt 
has been increased by $38,281.
  The federal budget should be an honest blueprint for the spending 
priorities of the government. However, this budget is not honest. It is 
passing our obligations, responsibilities and challenges to our 
children and grandchildren, while cutting programs that benefit the 
poorest among us.
  We need not accept a federal budget that singles out hard-working 
middle-class families, those who have served our Nation, and our 
society's most vulnerable citizens. Americans deserve an honest budget 
that reflects their priorities and that honors their hard work. I urge 
my colleagues to reject these unnecessary cuts and work to improve the 
capacity of programs to address critical community needs.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition of H. Con. Res. 
95, the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2006.
  This budget contains painful spending cuts to critical programs, 
continued large deficits, and a spiraling debt.
  It is fiscally reckless, morally irresponsible and is a clear failure 
of leadership.
  This budget is a sham. It fails to include funding for many of the 
President's key programs--such as Social Security privatization, the 
war in Iraq, and the cost of the Alternative Minimum Tax. It does not 
cut the deficit in half, as the Administration claims. When all omitted 
costs are included, it will raise the deficit by $2 trillion over five 
years.
  This growing debt will be passed on to our children and 
grandchildren, leaving them to shoulder the burden of our fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  This budget cuts critical programs that working families depend on, 
like Medicaid, education, community development and veterans' health 
care.
  We have soldiers fighting for us in Iraq, and this budget doesn't 
even provide enough funding to pay for their health care when they 
return.
  The budget will also endanger the health of millions of Americans, by 
proposing a $1.1 billion cut to food stamps, the Nation's number

[[Page 5138]]

one investment in nutrition and defense against hunger.
  If this budget passes, we will be forcing working families to make 
hard choices between buying groceries and paying their bills.
  The budget also spends every single penny of the $1.1 trillion Social 
Security trust fund. We need to return to pay as you go budget rules, 
so that we can provide a solid source of funding for Social Security.
  What is most disturbing, is that the resolution before us today is 
even more dangerous than the version the President sent to Congress.
  The budget fails to offer the specifics of the President's budget. It 
proposes large cuts in funding, but without targeting specific 
programs, it leaves a myriad of programs vulnerable to cuts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We need a plan that is fiscally 
responsible and will fund the programs working families depend on.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, the proposed reductions in Medicaid under 
this Budget Resolution plan are unacceptable. For 40 years Medicaid has 
always been a crucial support system for low-income individuals. 
Medicaid has made health care available to millions of Americans who 
have no other access to health care.
  The Budget Resolution will require $14-$20 billion in cuts from the 
program over the next five years and it will almost certainly lead to 
changes to state funding rules, administrative payment cuts, and 
prescription drug payment changes. This comes at a time when poverty is 
up, wages are down, and the number of uninsured Americans is at a 
record in our nation's history.
  The Medicaid program serves nearly 50 million Americans. As people 
lost jobs and income during the recent economic downturn, Medicaid 
enrollment increased by nearly one-third. The decreasing number of 
those who receive health care benefits through employment adds 
additional burdens to the Medicaid system. States and local governments 
rely on federal assistance to help provide a safety-net to these 
individuals. Any cuts to the Medicaid program will shift the burden 
entirely onto state and local governments that are already straining to 
meet increasing demands on the program and severe budget pressures of 
their own. In many states, Medicaid costs exceed education costs.
  In California, our Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, matches every dollar 
of federal funding with a dollar in state funding. This shared 
commitment is critical since the state receives $20 billion in federal 
funding. Reducing federal Medicaid funding to states at a time of 
rising health care costs, increased numbers of uninsured, and states' 
increasing difficulties in paying their share of Medicaid costs, is 
bound to force states to reduce coverage and increase the numbers of 
uninsured. Uninsured patients without access to care will instead seek 
treatment in emergency rooms, further burdening an already overtaxed 
system.
  The Medicaid program is not only critical for low-income individuals, 
but it's also fundamental to the operation of California's safety-net 
hospitals. The President's budget calls for eliminating the use of 
intergovernmental transfers for hospital funding. This means there will 
be at least $11.9 billion in direct cuts to safety-net providers 
nationwide. Many states rely on IGTs to fund their Medicaid budgets. 
The low-income and uninsured rely on these hospitals to receive access 
to needed health care services. Without the continuation of federal 
Medicaid funds targeted to safety net hospitals, millions of 
Californians will not have access to necessary health care services. 
This budget resolution advances this march to folly for so many 
Americans and that's why 242 national groups and 785 state groups, 
including the National Governors Association and the National 
Association of Counties oppose changes in Medicaid.
  We have an obligation to care for the less fortunate, and the 
Congress should not be cutting critical health care and other services 
from those in need. Rather, we should maintain our partnership with the 
states to ensure that Medicaid benefits remain available for the most 
vulnerable in our society.
  I urge all my colleagues in the House to oppose the Budget 
Resolution.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
Republican budget of mass destruction and in support of the Democratic 
and Congressional Black Caucus alternative budgets which recognize the 
true needs and values of our Nation.
  We do not need to call in weapons inspectors to find the threat to 
the majority of Americans in this budget, nor do we need a warning 
system. We know exactly what, when, and where the damage will be 
because the Republican budget, once again, puts the tax cuts of the few 
above the needs of the many.
  Under the Republican budget, the vast majority of Americans are asked 
to sacrifice, with one exception: the wealthy who can most afford to 
give something up. Their tax cuts--the same tax cuts that brought us 
unprecedented deficits--are protected and even extended under this 
proposal. They will cost our country an additional $106 billion, of 
which 75 percent will go to people making over $200,000 a year.
  In order to pay for those tax cuts, the Republicans are literally 
proposing to take away food and health care from low-income families, 
kill 48 education programs by eliminating the $4.3 billion that funds 
them, slash veterans' health care--including cutting $9 million from 
medical and prosthetic research, and undermine community development in 
struggling neighborhoods by cutting $1.5 billion in grant programs. 
Despite Republican claims, these cuts will do nothing to help our 
country's bottom line, but they will be devastating for the children, 
working families, veterans and seniors who will be asked to go without. 
This is not only irresponsible, but immoral.
  In the that state of Illinois, we could see the Earned Income Tax 
Credit--the most effective anti-poverty program--cut by $164.2 million, 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and child care grants lose 
$84.3 million, and Supplemental Security Income--which helps poor 
seniors and people with disabilities--slashed by $174 million. 
Thousands of vulnerable peoples' lives will be destroyed if the 
Republican budget passes.
  The House Republican budget is even worse than the President's 
proposal. For instance, they propose even greater cuts to Medicaid than 
under his plan. The $20 billion in Medicaid cuts included in this 
budget resolution are unwise, unjustifiable and almost certainly 
lethal. As health care costs continue to rise, the number of uninsured 
Americans exceeds 45 million, and employers continue to cut back on 
coverage, Medicaid has provided a guarantee of support for pregnant 
women and children, persons with disabilities, persons living with AIDS 
or mental illnesses, and senior citizens needing medical care or long 
term care services. Without those services, millions of Americans will 
no longer be able to get the physical health, mental health, and long 
term care services they need to remain healthy and productive.
  In my state of Illinois, Medicaid covers 40 percent of all births, 30 
percent of all children, and 65 percent of all nursing home residents. 
In Illinois, under the leadership of our governor, we are working to 
expand Medicaid to cover more children and more families in face of a 
growing crisis in health care. This is not just the right thing to do, 
it is the cost-effective course to take. Medicaid costs less than 
private health insurance and its per capita costs are growing more 
slowly than private insurance premiums. But, if the Republican budget 
cuts re enacted, it may no longer be there for the millions of 
Americans who have no other source of care--other than bankrupting 
their families or mortgaging their futures to pay for their parents' 
long term care needs or their children's medical services.
  Budgets are not just about numbers, they are about values and 
priorities. Based on the Republicans' proposal, maintaining and making 
permanent tax cuts for millionaires has been and continues to be a 
higher priority than meeting the needs of the majority of Americans. 
And, they are shifting the responsibility of their fiscal mess onto the 
backs of our children who will see decreased services and will be asked 
to deal with deficits for years to come.
  The Democratic and CBC budgets recognize that this is the wrong thing 
to do and a great threat to our nation's future well-being and 
prosperity. It is time to reverse course so that we do not continue to 
mortgage our country's future and our children's prosperity in order to 
pay for tax cuts for the rich that we cannot afford and that they do 
not need. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican WMD and 
for the Democratic and CBC budgets.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the House of 
Representatives' budget plan and thank Chairman Nussle and his 
committee for their dedicated work on this legislation.
  I think many of us agree that a federal budget of more than $2.5 
trillion dollars provides enough resources for the government. As I 
tell my constituents, we don't have an income problem herein 
Washington; we have a spending problem. Even as our economy has grown 
and revenues have increased in the past year, we continue to spend more 
than we take in. Our House budget takes important steps to address this 
spending problem while ensuing that our nation's most pressing needs 
are being met.
  We are at war, so defense and security funding remain a priority. 
Much of the increased spending in the past few years has

[[Page 5139]]

gone toward national defense and security, including $258 billion in 
extra funding since September 11, 2001. Our House budget matches 
President Bush's commitment to our national defense needs with a 4.8 
percent increase.
  Beyond national security, this budget provides sufficient funds to 
meet our priorities, but it also take important steps to begin 
addressing Congress' spending problem.
  First, our budget does not raise taxes in order to pay for more 
spending, as some are proposing in their alternatives. Second, our 
budget actually reduces non-defense and non-homeland security 
discretionary spending by .8 percent. Third, this budget will set us on 
course to reduce the growth in mandatory spending, which is growing far 
faster than our economy and comprises nearly two-thirds of all federal 
spending.
  By maintaining the tax relief and not allowing for tax increases, our 
House budget ensures that the economy will continue to grow and create 
jobs. Sustained economic growth resulting from sustained lower taxes 
also narrows the budget deficit.
  While non-defense discretionary spending is only about 20 percent of 
federal spending, it is the area in which Congress exercises the most 
direct annual control. We know there are programs that are wasteful, 
duplicative or unnecessary. By reducing spending in this area by .8 
percent, we force ourselves to do better at finding the waste and 
consolidating or eliminating the programs we don't need in order to 
make the best use of the resources available.
  For the first time in eight years, Congress is finally dealing with 
the unchecked growth of mandatory spending in this budget. Let's be 
clear--despite what we are hearing from some on the other side, this 
budget does not ``cut'' any programs that help those in need. More will 
still be spent this year than was spent last year, and by my West Texas 
definition, that is not a cut. What this budget does is set on the 
track to slow the rate of growth on the mandatory side, which is 
currently unsustainable. In the last ten years, federal Medicaid 
spending has nearly doubled, growing at an average of 8 percent each 
year. Even with the savings called for in this budget, Medicaid will 
still grow by 7.3 percent over the next 10 years, as opposed to 
increasing by 7.6 percent.
  With regard to the mandatory spending reduction set for agriculture. 
I am concerned that the target in this bill is more than agriculture's 
total share of mandatory spending. As we conference with the Senate, I 
ask that the Budget Committee work toward a number that is more in line 
with agriculture's 4.7 percent share of mandatory spending.
  What we are doing here with respect to agriculture is allowing the 
Agriculture Committee to look at all mandatory spending at USDA and 
have full discretion on how we reach our savings total. We can do this 
without ``reopening'' the Farm Bill. All USDA mandatory spending, 
including nutrition programs, must be considered.
  During the first three years of the 2002 Farm Bill, farm programs 
have cost $14 billion less than the Congressional Budget Office 
predicted when the legislation passed. The 2002 Farm Bill has proven to 
be a very effective safety net for our producers, providing support in 
times of lower prices, and reducing support when it is not needed. And 
even though spending will increase somewhat this year due to lower 
prices, total spending over the life of this Farm Bill is still 
projected to be less than was predicted.
  Changing the rules of the game now, and then again in two years, is 
not sound policy. Budget decisions we make in agriculture today will 
not only affect the 2007 Farm Bill, but they will also affect our 
negotiating position in the World Trade Organization. If we take all of 
our chips off the table now, we will not have anything left to 
negotiate with as our trade representatives continue efforts to open 
new markets and reduce other barriers to U.S. products.
  During meetings with constituents throughout my district, farmers 
understood the importance of balancing the budget, and they are willing 
to do their part to reduce the deficit. However, they do not support 
agriculture bearing a disproportionate share of the burden. Neither do 
I, and I am committed to working in conference to ensure our final 
budget outline for the year treats agriculture fairly.
  Our constituents are looking to us to make responsible decisions 
about the use of their hard-earned tax dollars. They are counting on us 
to set the right priorities and follow through on past commitments. I 
believe our House budget sets us on the right path toward reducing 
spending, keeping our economy growing and protecting our nation.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, a federal budget is a statement of values. 
It says more about our values that any speeches, any rhetoric, any 
time.
  Sadly, this partisan budget reflects the failed values of fiscal 
irresponsibility. And misplaced priorities. It locks in massive 
deficits for as far as the eye can see, adding hundreds of billions of 
dollars to a huge national debt that will slow our Nation's economic 
growth, put Social Security benefits at risk and bury your children in 
a sea of red ink for the rest of their lives.
  Large deficits and underinvestment in education, research and health 
care are not prescriptions for a healthy economic future--they are 
prescriptions for economic stagnation and decline.
  In my opinion, this budget is immoral. It asks the most from those 
who have the least and asks the least from those who have the most. 
That fails the values test of every major religious faith in our 
society.
  This budget makes it harder for millions of students to attend 
college by increasing the gap between college costs vs student 
financial aid.
  This budget says to veterans, including Iraqi war veterans that 
pensions for disabilities, compensation checks and G.I. education 
benefits will be cut by $795 million over five years, thus making a 
mockery of the American principle of shared sacrifice during time of 
war. 14 billion over 5 years. I would imagine that budget item won't be 
discussed by supporters of this bill in their Veterans Day speeches 
this November.
  This budget says to thousands of seniors who need nursing home care 
under the Medicaid program that you'll just have to go without that 
care. In my book, that's not a very respectful way of honoring thy 
father and mother.
  To the working woman I met yesterday who works hard to help troubled 
youth in my hometown in Texas, this budget says your housing program 
will be cut, making it more difficult for her to find decent housing on 
a limited income.
  Yet, to the fortunate person who makes one million dollars this year 
on dividend income, this budget says you can keep every dime of the 
$220,000 tax break you have received recently.
  Asking seniors, students, veterans and hard-working families to 
sacrifice so those in the top one-tenth of one percent of income in 
America can keep all of their recent tax cuts does not pass the 
fairness test.
  If this is a faith-based initiative, I would like to know on which 
faith it is based.
  By refusing once again to require tax cuts to be paid for, my House 
Republican colleagues are endorsing the largest deficits in American 
history for the third year in a row. They have preached to us for five 
years the all gain, no pain budget built on the free lunch philosophy.
  Unfortunately, the bill collector is now calling and the deficits 
caused by that failed philosophy have been financed by the Japanese and 
Communist Chinese who own tens of billions of our national debt and 
with it, the ability to wreck our American economy.
  If House Republican leaders want to preach fiscal responsibility to 
individuals by toughening our bankruptcy law, then they had better 
start practicing what they preach. It is ironic that those who are 
condemning the personal debt of citizens have been the architects of 
three consecutive years of the largest federal deficits in American 
history.
  Burdening America's middle class with greater debt and under 
investing in education and health care for working families is neither 
fair nor fiscally responsible.
  Vote no on this budget. We can do much better, and the American 
people and our children deserve much better.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Record to reflect my views 
on the horrendous and deliberate deficits our Nation faces--these 
articles appeared today in Roll Call and last week in the New York 
Times.

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 11, 2005]

                      Rescission Time in Congress

                            (By Jim Cooper)

       President Bush regularly calls on Congress to restrain 
     spending. But he has yet to put his pen where his mouth is by 
     using his veto--a blunt instrument, to be sure, but one that 
     very few American presidents have failed to wield, especially 
     during times of high deficits. Mr. Bush says he prefers a 
     sharper veto power; the ability to cut spending programs 
     within larger bills. He called for line-item veto power in 
     his first press conference after his re-election and in his 
     2006 budget.
       But such a statute is not only out of reach--it would 
     probably require a constitutional amendment--it is also 
     unnecessary. Why? Because Mr. Bush can already cut individual 
     programs out of larger legislation with a scalpel that's 
     almost as sharp as the line-item veto. An obscure law passed 
     during the Nixon administration gives the president 
     extraordinary power to stop any discretionary spending. All 
     he has to do is persuade Republicans on Capitol Hill to go 
     along.

[[Page 5140]]

       It's called rescission. Under the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the president can select any 
     appropriated Federal program for reduction or elimination by 
     sending a message to Congress, which then has 45 days to 
     approve his decision with a simple majority in each house. If 
     Congress agrees, the president can reshape Federal government 
     to his liking. If Congress disagrees, or fails to act, the 
     cut disappears.
       This law gives Mr. Bush more power than he has sought for 
     his battles on trade promotion or new Federal judges. With 
     it, he can pick his targets, put fast-track pressure on 
     Congress to respond, and win by gaining a simple majority 
     approval--in other words, rescission is filibuster-proof.
       So why haven't presidents been vigorously using the 
     Impoundment Act to manage the budget in the last 31 years? 
     The reason is that different parties usually controlled the 
     White House and Congress, making large cuts impossible. For 
     example, President Clinton won 111 of the 163 rescissions he 
     requested from a divided Congress, but was able to save only 
     several billion dollars.
       Although Republicans now control both the House and Senate, 
     Mr. Bush has not asked for any rescissions, large or small. 
     Why has Mr. Bush kept this knife in a dusty drawer, 
     especially given the staggering deficit, his public stance on 
     the need to curb spending and his close ties with the 
     Republican Congressional leadership? Surely he knows how 
     often Mr. Clinton resorted to it.
       Perhaps his unwillingness stems from the knowledge that, 
     with rescission, Americans know who wielded the knife and 
     what programs were cut or kept. But to govern is to choose. 
     If Republicans really want to cut spending and reduce the 
     deficit, they have more weapons than any political party has 
     had in decades.
       Jim Cooper, Democrat of Tennessee, is a member of the House 
     Budget Committee.
                                  ____
                                  

                   [From the Rollcall, Mar. 17, 2005]

                    The Missing-in-Action President

       Today Congress will vote on a 5-year budget for the Nation. 
     Usually contentious, this year's debate is relatively quiet 
     as the richest nation in the world begs foreigners to finance 
     our lifestyle.
       Most Americans can name the President's top four policy 
     priorities--tax cuts, war in Iraq, Social Security reform, 
     and Medicare drug legislation. What Americans don't know is 
     that these were either omitted from, or low-balled in, the 
     President's own budget and his $82 billion supplemental 
     request. It's as if Bush budgeted for someone else's 
     presidency.
       The President's budget pays for only six months of the war 
     in Iraq and completely overlooks the transition costs of 
     Social Security reform. The Administration always lied about 
     the cost of the Medicare drug bill. Extending the tax cuts 
     will produce a sea of red ink just beyond the Bush budget's 
     five-year window.
       The House Republican budget is based largely on the 
     President's, adding a tiny bit of compassion and $50 billion 
     for the war. Its deficits are still so large that, by the 
     last year of the Bush administration, we will be paying more 
     money to our Nation's creditors than to our own citizens in 
     non-defense domestic discretionary spending. According to the 
     GAO, by 2040 our current policies will result in creditors 
     getting all of our defense, Social Security, Medicare, 
     veterans' benefits, or any other program to help Americans.
       Republican control of the executive and legislative 
     branches means that they have the power to budget honestly 
     for our Nation and reduce our deficits. President Clinton was 
     able to achieve budget surpluses despite a divided 
     government.
       Take the veto. Bush is the first president since James 
     Garfield in 1881 not to veto a single bill. Garfield only had 
     six months in office; Bush has had over 4 years.
       Bush did threaten to veto any effort to repeal the 2003 
     Medicare drug law that added $8.1 trillion in unfunded 
     liabilities to our Nation. This one entitlement program will 
     twice as hard for future generations to afford as the alleged 
     ``crisis'' in Social Security. Bush brandished his veto pen 
     to force Congress to spend money we do not have.
       Take the rescission power. Few people realize that Bush 
     could slash any program in Federal government with the 
     approval of a simple majority in the Senate and the House. He 
     has ``fast-track'' authority and no worries about 
     filibusters. In other words, Republicans already have the 
     ``nuclear option'' top cut spending. they've never used it. 
     They don't even want you to know they have it.
       President Clinton was able to pass 111 of his 163 
     rescission requests, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. 
     President Bush has requested no rescissions.
       Bush himself repeatedly calls for line-item veto power in 
     order to tame spending. But why wait years for a 
     constitutional amendment when he has never used the power he 
     already has? Every second counts. Delay costs us over a 
     billion dollars a day in additional borrowing.
       Bush may be a strong leader in the war on terrorism, but on 
     budget deficits he is missing-in-action. Conservative think 
     tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute have 
     criticized Bush for his big increases in spending, which far 
     exceed those of the Clinton era. Meanwhile tax revenues as a 
     percent of GNP are the lowest since Eisenhower days.
       Democrats are accustomed to Republicans routinely violating 
     their term-limits pledges, and forgetting their Contract-
     with-America idealism (including the Balanced Budget 
     Amendment), but Republicans are doing serious damage to the 
     Nation with their irresponsibility on budget issues. As Head 
     of State and Party, the President is being particularly 
     irresponsible.
       Is government spending the problem, as Republicans claim? 
     If so, they have all the tools to stop it--more tools than 
     any political party in modern times. Why won't Bush use his 
     budget, his veto, his rescission, or simple restraint? Could 
     it be that Republicans have fallen in love with ``big 
     government''? They are just refusing to pay her expenses.
       Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee, serves on the House 
     Budget Committee and as Co-Chair of the Blue Dog Coalition, a 
     group of Democratic fiscal and defense hawks.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, throughout the year, Members often express 
support for certain policies and programs or advocate for fiscal 
discipline. However, during the consideration of the Budget Resolution 
our true commitment to those priorities comes to light.
  What this Republican Budget Resolution reveals is that the Majority 
is more concerned with advancing a narrow ideological agenda. Carefully 
making sure to allow for a total of $106 billion in tax cuts over five 
years for high-end earners, this GOP Budget Resolution carelessly 
exacts severe cuts to critical services that benefit students of all 
ages, veterans, first responders, poor and working families, and 
communities interested in economic development.
  What this Republican Budget Resolution reveals is that the Majority 
is more interested in advancing a reckless, unsustainable economic 
policy than restoring fiscal responsibility. In fact, the Majority's 
proposal calls for a deficit of $376 billion in 2006--$78 billion more 
than the Congressional Budget Office's estimate. This budget, which 
only accounts for five years, never reaches balance.
  The Republican Budget signifies a failure in honest accounting not 
just because of what is included, but also for what it disingenuously 
leaves out. Excluded from this Budget are the details of the 
President's estimated $754 billion 10-year Social Security 
privatization plan ($20 Billion over the next decade), the cost of the 
over $800 billion (and growing) Medicare drug bill, the longer term 
costs of the war in Iraq, the cost to stop the alternative minimum tax 
from penalizing regular families, and the implications of extending the 
tax cuts.
  Feigning fiscal discipline and fundamentally at odds with what I 
believe are the real priorities and concerns of the American people, 
this GOP Budget Resolution also offers no 21st Century competitive 
strategy for our country and further shreds what is left of our ever-
fraying safety net.
  A much needed competitive strategy would start with education, which 
is the vehicle through which students of all ages can achieve and 
become what they may never have otherwise dreamed possible. Going to 
college and attaining a degree is, unfortunately, not a right of 
passage for the vast majority in our country. Achieving this goal must 
not be minimized. Each year, a young man or woman becomes the first 
member of his or her family to graduate from college. For them, and for 
all their relatives and loved ones, obtaining a diploma means progress 
and instills pride. A college degree translates into hard dollars: over 
their lifetime, college graduates will earn on average $1 million more 
than they would have if they did not attend post-secondary school.
  Schools continue to serve as the source where we can view the promise 
of America in progress, and our country's legacy depends upon how well 
we educate our young people. For those not completing four years of 
college, higher job skills and technical abilities acquired through 
vocational and technological training and education are the path to the 
middle class.
  The Majority's budget cuts education programs by $2.5 billion in 2006 
and $38 billion over the next five years and completely eliminates 48 
programs, including the $1.3 billion vocational education program, the 
$437 million Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, the $306 million GEAR-
UP program, and the $225 million Even Start family literacy program.
  These cuts come at a time when the cost of attending a four-year 
public college has increased more than $2,300. In fact, according to 
the 2003 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education survey, 
Massachusetts had the largest tuition increase in four-year public 
institutions (24 percent), and the second largest in community colleges 
(26 percent).

[[Page 5141]]

They attack our increasingly successful community college and 
vocational-technical training programs.
  These cuts come at a time when there is an increased need to college 
access programs, including GEAR-UP and TRIO, that help high school 
students prepare for, apply to, and find financial aid for college.
  These cuts come at a time when many communities across the country 
are struggling with a growing methamphetamine and opiate problem. In 
Massachusetts, according to statistics from the state's Department of 
Public Health, the number of deaths from opiates has risen over 300%--
from 108 in 1991 to 468 in 2001, which is the most recent year for 
which statistics are available.
  The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants program 
has assisted states and school districts in developing youth anti-drug 
education initiatives, which has, in turn, helped parents and teachers 
learn more about the prevalence of drugs in the community. The program 
has been a source through which Massachusetts has been successful in 
obtaining $40 million in funds over the past five years.
  It is not just those who are looking to improve themselves through 
education that this GOP Budget Resolution betrays, but it also advances 
the Administration's all-out assault against those that depend on our 
longstanding safety net, those programs that assist the poor, children, 
elderly, and people with disabilities. Meanwhile, let me reiterate, the 
Republican proposal calls for $106 billion in additional tax cuts. 
According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy 
Center, 46% of those who will benefit from these tax cuts in 2005 will 
be households who earn $1 million, which comprise only .2 percent of 
all households nationwide. The average tax cut for this income bracket 
was greater than $30,000 in 2003.
  This GOP Budget Resolution finances its hundred billion-dollar tax 
cut for the highest income earners at the expense of the most 
vulnerable and least fortunate in society. That is wrong.
  As required by the Republican Budget, the Agriculture Committee would 
be forced to cut spending by more than $5 billion over five years. With 
the general reluctance to alter or scale back farm subsidies, the food 
stamp program would bear the brunt of these cuts. This is not a program 
that has been riddled with so-called ``waste, fraud, and abuse.'' The 
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that ``over 95 
percent of food stamp benefits go to households with income below the 
federal poverty level. Virtually all of the remainder goes to the 
elderly and people with disabilities.''
  Further, their budget makes deeper cuts in Medicaid than the 
President's budget, directing the Ways and Means Committee and the 
Energy and Commerce Committee to cut $19 and $20 billion respectively. 
It is expected that the bulk of such cuts will fall on low-income 
programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, 
unemployment benefits, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, foster 
care, and Medicaid.
  According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, ``these 
Medicaid cuts are likely to push hard-pressed states to eliminate 
coverage for a substantial number of low income people, increasing the 
ranks of the uninsured and the underinsured.''
  The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that, should 
these cuts affect all states proportionally, this would translate into 
a loss of over $117 million for Massachusetts.
  This is not the direction in which this country should be headed. 
What is being proposed in the Republican Majority's Budget Resolution 
is not a blueprint for success.
  Certainly, our constituents want to know that their tax dollars are 
being well spent. There is no question about that.
  But parents also do not want to pass on huge amounts of debt to their 
children, which is what the GOP Budget Resolution does.
  Parents do not want their children to be denied opportunities to 
learn and advance in ways beyond what they achieved in life. Moms and 
dads want to ensure that their kids are educated about drugs. They want 
their kids to know how to maximize their chances of gaining acceptance 
at a college and have programs available to help minimize the cost.
  They want to know there are enough police and fire fighters on the 
street to be able to respond effectively to emergencies, they want our 
country's veterans to receive adequate care after they return home from 
service, and they want to protect the environment so their sons and 
daughters inherit cleaner air and safer drinking water.
  At the same time, they take offense to denying food stamps or 
eliminating Medicaid coverage for those who depend on such services 
just to make room for another hundred billion dollar tax cut for the 
already well-off. That doesn't meet their standard of fundamental 
fairness.
  Their Budget Resolution does nothing to improve upon our long-term 
fiscal outlook, fails students, and exploits the poor. We must do 
better. We implement solutions that honestly and effectively address 
the budget deficit, chart a course that allows our students to 
competitively excel, and adequately provide for those who need the most 
help.
  A Better Way: The Democratic Budget is a more fiscally responsible 
approach to balancing the budget. It achieves balance by 2012, while 
accumulating less debt and wastes fewer resources on interest payments 
needed to service the national debt.
  The Democratic alternative is based on essential two-sided pay-as-
you-go budget enforcement rules that led to a balanced budget in the 
1990's. The cost of any additional spending, or any new tax cut, must 
be paid for by curbing spending, offsetting spending cuts, or new 
revenues. The 1990 pay-as-you-go rules had bipartisan support, 
including the support of the first President Bush. Those rules turned 
record deficits into record surpluses in large part because they 
subjected all parts of the budget, discretionary and mandatory 
spending, as well as revenues, to budget discipline. The Republican 
budget contains no such enforcement provisions.
  The Democratic budget provides $4.5 billion more for education and 
training programs than the Republican budget for 2006 and $41 billion 
more over the next five years. It rejects the $21 billion in cuts that 
the Republican budget requires the Education and the Workforce 
Committee to make over five years, increases the maximum Pell Grant by 
$100 in each of the next ten years--twice the Republican increase--and 
eliminates the program's current $4.3 billion funding shortfall.
  The Democratic budget provides $2 billion more than the Republican 
budget for 2006 and $9 billion more over five years for community and 
regional development, blocking the President's proposal to eliminate 
the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Cuts in food stamps, 
housing, elderly services and other safety-net protections would not be 
necessary.
  The Democratic Budget works towards elimination of the deficit, 
paring it down dramatically in the next five years, and thus saving us 
from huge interest payments needed to service the national debt.
  We pay for all this by not extending the tax cuts for those earning 
over $200,000. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution 
Tax Policy Center this would provide $223.5 billion between calendar 
year 2005 and 2010.
  The tax cuts were originally promoted as temporary--if extended, they 
will cost $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Coupled with the costly 
challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan and the need to invest in our 
future, the tax cuts prove an unbalanced approach that creates huge 
deficits and shortchanges America's priorities.
  It is time to seize the opportunity to restore sanity and candor to 
the budget process and to pass a budget that promotes the security and 
values of the American people without imposing increased social 
inequities and crushing debt to future generations.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H. 
Con. Res. 95, the Republican Budget Resolution, and in support of the 
Democratic Substitute offered by Mr. Spratt.
  The Republican budget does not reflect the priorities of our Nation 
or my Minnesota constituents and will almost certainly have a negative 
impact on America's families. This legislation reduces support for law 
enforcement, fire fighters and local units of government. It fails to 
meet our commitment to our veterans--at a time when we are asking more 
and more of our military and their families. Even the Republicans' most 
creative use of accounting gimmicks and phony projections still yields 
a record federal budget deficit, makes no allowance for the President's 
plan for Social Security, and fails to include the Iraq war in the 
budget--which is currently costing taxpayers $5 billion a month.
  This budget eliminates opportunities for our children to be 
successful, including vocational education programs, safe and drug free 
schools, and Even Start. Republicans continue to underfund No Child 
Left Behind and college loan programs that provide access to higher 
education for millions of Americans. The budget proposes to make deep 
cuts in Medicaid--a proposal that will hurt low-income families, the 
elderly and disabled, health care workers and our hospitals. These 
health care cuts will also create severe budget difficulties for our 
states and have been strongly opposed by a bipartisan group of 
governors. The Republican

[[Page 5142]]

budget slashes funding for clean water programs, farm conservation 
measures and funding for brownfields development.
  In fact, the proposal put forward by the Majority inflicts so much 
burden on average families that it has been called `unjust' by a broad 
religious coalition and was opposed by the major veterans 
organizations. If the federal budget is a document that reflects the 
values of President Bush and the Republicans in Congress then this 
budget is not only `unjust' but void of mainstream American values.
  I want fiscally responsibility, not larger deficits. My constituents 
demand a common sense budget that returns our nation to sound fiscal 
decision making and balances the budget within seven years using common 
sense, pay-as-you-go budgeting like every family does. We need to put 
family priorities first by maintaining strong national security, 
strengthening education, protecting veterans' health care and ensuring 
families are economically secure. For these reasons I strongly support 
the Democratic budget, a common sense alternative to the dangerous and 
irresponsible Republican plan.
  This Congress must make a real effort, as proposed by the Democrats, 
to reduce the deficit rather than allow it to grow and remain a burden 
for the next generation. We need to be honest about the cost of the war 
in Iraq, rather than continue to pass so-called ``emergency'' 
supplemental appropriations as we did earlier this week. And we need to 
put families first. The President and House Republicans choose tax 
breaks for corporations over students and veterans' as their top 
priority.
  The Democratic substitute restores fiscal discipline and reduces the 
deficit while protecting the services our families depend upon, keeping 
our communities and economy strong. I am proud to support the 
Democratic substitute and I will continue to fight to ensure our 
families priorities are the priorities of Congress.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments to the 
concurrent resolution, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Fossella, Acting 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. 95) establishing the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2006, revising appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2005, and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, pursuant to House 
Resolution 154, 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 the concurrent resolution.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 214, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     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
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coble
     Delahunt
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1603

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts and Mr. DOGGETT changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay''.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________