"Although I believe this budget, as amended on the floor of the Senate, is better than the resolution passed by the Budget Committee, it is still fiscally irresponsible, and I cannot support it at this time.

• This budget, if passed, would increase the FY 2004 budget deficit by $138 billion above the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline, to $338 billion. This does not include the cost of the war or the reconstruction of Iraq, which is likely to push the budget deficit above $400 billion.



• The resolution contains a $350 billion tax cut which we cannot afford, and which would be financed entirely through deficit spending.



• The resolution does not adequately address numerous domestic spending priorities, such as education and homeland security.

We Cannot Afford New Tax Cuts

Despite having been amended to reduce the size of the tax cut from $726 billion to $350 billion, this budget would still add more than $1.3 trillion to our national debt over the next 10 years when interest costs are included.

Our budget deficit this year alone is likely to surpass $400 billion, even before the new tax cuts proposed in this budget go into effect. While the Administration pushes for new tax cuts, our fiscal situation continues to deteriorate.

Just last night, CBO released a report that indicates that even with no changes in tax law, the government will take in $30 billion less in 2003, and $60 billion less between 2004 and 2008.

In the same report, CBO estimated that the President's tax cut package would have at most a small stimulative effect on economic growth, and might not increase growth at all.

While the effect this budget will have on the economy is uncertain, we can be certain that it will increase our debt. In fact, net public debt will exceed $5 trillion by the end of the decade, and interest payments on the debt will double over the next ten years, from $155 billion this year to $310 billion in 2013.

Only at the very end of the 10 year budget period, and under the most optimistic scenario, would we return to surplus.

Spending Limits in the Budget Cut into Many Programs

There is an urgent need to fund many priorities which are not dealt with in this budget, and those needs are not likely to disappear over the next decade.

Those priorities include, among others:

• The war in Iraq and the subsequent reconstruction of Iraq
• The President's No Child Left Behind education initiative
• Homeland Security
• A full prescription drug benefit in Medicare

Thanks to the success of an amendment offered by Senator Feingold, the budget does include a $100 billion war reserve fund to be used to cover the cost of the war in Iraq. But the reserve fund is not paid for, however, and will increase the deficit substantially in FY 2003 and 2004.

Moreover, the ultimate costs of the war and post-war reconstruction are still unknown, and could be substantially higher than $100 billion.

With regard to domestic spending, the limits set out in this budget are extremely low. The President's No Child Left Behind initiative would go largely unfunded, and funding for Homeland Security is not adequate to meet the security needs of cities, towns, and counties across the country.

Many priorities that are important to Californians are either cut or eliminated altogether, most notably funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. If that program is eliminated, the burden of processing and incarcerating criminal aliens will fall entirely on thinly-stretched state law enforcement budgets.

The Need for a Bipartisan, Revenue-Neutral Budget

I believe that bipartisan cooperation is crucial to the federal budget process, and such cooperation requires both sides to forego certain new spending initiatives and new tax cuts.

In an attempt to bridge the gap, I co-sponsored a bipartisan amendment offered with Senators Carper, Chafee, Lincoln, and Landrieu.

Unlike the final resolution being voted on today, our substitute budget included significant tax relief for low and middle-income families that is paid for over a 10 year period by freezing future tax cuts for taxpayers in the two highest income tax brackets.

That budget would have balanced the budget in 2009, three years before the underlying resolution.

That budget would have required tough choices with regard to discretionary spending, but it would have been entirely revenue-neutral over the ten year budget period and would not have added any new debt whatsoever.

Conclusion

When faced with the choice between supporting a bad budget and no budget at all, I must choose the latter.

I support a budget which faces our fiscal needs head-on, even when an economic downturn forces us to make tough choices, and which resists the temptation to further increase the debt burden on future generations of taxpayers. Mr. President, this is not that budget.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the FY 2004 budget resolution."

###