Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 -- (House of Representatives - March 24, 2004)

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

The Chair designates the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) to assume the chair temporarily.

[Time: 13:48]

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 consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 393) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2005 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through 2009, with Mr. Miller of Florida (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, March 23, 2004, the concurrent resolution is considered as having been read the first time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, yesterday on this House floor, the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, remarked that this budget debate frames the Democratic and Republican Parties' competing visions of America. On that, we are in complete agreement. The Federal budget is indeed a statement of our national priorities. It is a statement of our values. And today, through its budget resolution, the Republican Party tells all of America that it lacks the will and it lacks the courage to address the fiscal crisis that its failed economic policies have created over the last 3 years.

Last week, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa, said this: "We don't believe you should have to pay for tax cuts." Well, my Republican friends, you do not. But our children and grandchildren will pay for them.

With a projected record budget deficit of more than $500 billion this year alone, this budget resolution would dig an even deeper deficit hole. It would increase the deficit by nearly $250 billion over the next 5 years, and over the next 10 years increase the deficit already projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be $2 trillion, an additional $1.6 trillion of deficit, that young people will have to pay off.

Democrats believe that it is irresponsible, indeed immoral, to adopt such a policy and to plunge our Nation even deeper into debt and to force future generations to pay our bills. Republicans apparently are not bothered by that.

This budget resolution would spend the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus, all of it, every nickel of Social Security surplus over the next 5 years and in subsequent years. Democrats believe that it is irresponsible, indeed, as I have said, immoral, to rob Social Security and Medicare to pay for tax cuts. Republicans apparently do not.

And this budget resolution would freeze funding for domestic appropriations outside of homeland security to make room for tax cuts. Even a respected Member of your own party, Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida, has recognized the folly of trying to balance the budget on the backs of children, veterans, the elderly and the uninsured.

In February, Chairman Young, one of the most respected Members of the Republican Party, a leader in this House, said: "No one should expect significant deficit reduction as a result of austere nondefense discretionary spending limits. The numbers simply do not add up."

Why do the numbers not add up? Because nondefense discretionary spending represents only 17 percent of the entire Federal budget.

And then we are told, my friends, that we will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. I am for that, and I am shocked that the Republican administration has been in office for 3 ½ years, controlled this House and the Senate, and we still have significant waste, fraud and abuse in Washington. What is wrong with this administration? Do they not care about waste, fraud and abuse? Why have they not gotten rid of it?

The truth is, we could wipe out all nondefense discretionary spending and we would still be running a deficit of more than $100 billion. In other words, we would shut down all of government. Maybe some would like to do that. But the people who ride on roads, the people who want the FBI on the job, the people who want the CIA on the job, the people who want NIH researchers trying to find out how to cure cancer would want them on the job.

Mr. Chairman, Democrats fought for pay-as-you-go budget rules that require both spending increases and revenue decreases to be offset. That is what Alan Greenspan said was responsible. That is what the other body voted for. A bipartisan majority of the other Chamber voted for that. And all of us know that our bipartisan agreement on such rules in 1990 led to steadily decreasing deficits, four consecutive surpluses and the strongest economy in our lifetimes.

But House Republicans have refused. Instead, they want to pretend that they are committed to fiscal discipline. They say they want to apply PAYGO rules to spending increases, but not tax cuts. In fact, they will not bring it to the floor. The majority leader says it has got to "ripen." I am not sure what ripening means, but that is what, apparently, it has got to do.

But, of course, it is doubtful whether their budget enforcement bill will ever see the light of day.

For years, Mr. Chairman, House Republicans preened as "deficit hawks." Some even recognized that tax cuts are not, in fact, sacrosanct or freebies. That is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said.

We ought to reject this Republican budget resolution and adopt the responsible, effective Spratt alternative. The Blue Dog alternative does the same.

END