Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year 2004, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2003 and 2005 through 2013, with the Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to a conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. We are on the floor discussing the fact that the Federal Government does not have even one penny of waste. Do Members believe that? It is hard to believe that somebody would come to the floor of the House, or that an entire party would come to the floor of the House today and suggest that the United States Government does not have any waste.

I will admit, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) very eloquently stated, that there is no way, as we go to the conference between the House and Senate over the budget, that possibly the House- passed numbers of savings might be difficult to attain, and certainly might be difficult to reach a negotiation between the House and Senate.

But they come to the floor today and basically say that we are going to eliminate the instructions in order to get waste and abuse in this government, and that none of the instructions, not one of the years over the next 10 years can we even find a penny.

Is it going to be hard to find the $300 billion? Okay, let us suggest it is. We made an attempt on our side in good faith to try and look at our programs called entitlements, which are nothing more than automatic spending, which has now basically engulfed the budget to the tune of about 60 percent of all our expenditures are automatic. We have nothing to say about them. We get sent to Washington to make judgments and choices, and those choices were made before us, a long time before us, in many instances.

As we do research on those programs, as we look and examine the programs, where we find challenges, where we find waste, where we find abuse, where we find problems, we even hire an agency called the General Accounting Office to do reports for us, and when we find those, we are not to challenge ourselves to reform those programs. We are not to challenge ourselves to find savings in those programs. We are not to challenge ourselves to look in every nook and cranny of the budget, or every nook and cranny of the Federal Government in order, at a time of challenge for our country, to find savings, so we can save taxpayers a little bit of money.

I do not know about the Members, but I just had to send in my taxes. That is not a fun experience for me, and I am sure it is not for any of my colleagues. I guarantee, Members, it is not for my friends back home in Iowa as they go visit the tax people.

So looking for a little bit of savings, looking for a little bit of waste and fraud and abuse, I thought would be a pretty worthy endeavor. We even put into our budget a couple of different items that we found kind of interesting.

We said that the Inspector General for the Department of Education has found that nearly 23 percent of the recipients whose loans were discharged due to disability claims were gainfully employed. Now, think about this a second. What the Democrats are coming here today and saying is, we cannot find any waste. But the Inspector General who works for the Department of Education has found 23 percent of the claims for disability benefits for education were actually employed, 23 percent.

Can we do anything about that? No, we cannot do anything about that. Heaven forbid we challenge the Committee on Education and the Workforce to go looking for that, so let us eliminate that instruction. Not the amount in the budget, not even a penny, we cannot even find a penny of waste in the Education Department is what the Democrats are saying.

Based on the data provided by the Office of Management and Budget, the Committee on the Budget estimates more than $8 billion in erroneous earned income tax payments are made every year, $8 billion of checks that go out to recipients in the United States, $8 billion.

Can we do anything about that? No, no, we cannot do anything about that. We do not want to challenge that. That is going to be real heavy lifting; we cannot do anything about that.

The Office of Management and Budget estimates there are erroneous payments for food stamps that account for almost 9 percent, 9 percent. With almost one out of every 10 people who get food stamps, something was erroneous about those accounts and those benefits. Can we challenge the Committee on Agriculture to go look at that? No, we cannot do that. Heaven forbid we will come down to the floor and scream that it is going to farmers, when we know full well that it is not.

We put in here that mismanagement of almost more than $3 billion in trust funds controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs led the Congress to take extraordinary measures to regain control of the funds because $3 billion were being mismanaged.

Can we find that? No, do not look there. There is no waste over there. Do not look over there. We cannot find any waste over there, not this year, not next year, not for the next 10 years, no waste.

There is no waste in Washington, that is what the Democrats are coming to the floor today to tell us. We cannot do any of that, too heavy. That is too heavy lifting.

Inspector General, Personnel Management, has documented numerous instances of the government continuing to make electronic payments for retirement benefits for the Civil Service Retirement system after the person died, meaning that people who work for our Federal Government, we give them a pension, and after they die, we care so much about the work they did for the United States Government we keep paying them.

But can we ask anybody to go look for that? No, we cannot do that. The motion to instruct says no, we are not going to do that. There is no waste in Washington. That is what the Democrats say, no waste in Washington. Eliminate that instruction. That is too hard. In fact, if it really gets hard, we will come down here and tell people that we are throwing seniors out of nursing homes, or that we are eliminating Medicare benefits, or that we are going to do a disservice to veterans.

In fact, we do such a service to veterans that last year 5,500 veterans received benefits from the Veterans Administration after they died. But can we go to the Veterans Administration? No, we cannot touch them. We do not want to do anything in that department. That is too heavy, that is too hard. Let us just keep paying them, because it is easier to send out the press release today saying, I supported the veterans, or I supported Medicare, or I supported Medicaid, or I supported farmers.

I do not think Members are supporting veterans when they pay them when they die. That does not make much sense. Pay them when they are alive, pay them for their service; there is not anybody who disagrees with that. We all agree with that. But to say there is not at least even a penny of savings over the next 10 years, I would like Members to go home and explain that to Members' constituents in a town meeting. I want Members to explain that they do not believe there is any waste in Washington, no waste at all in Washington.

What we are asking our committees to do is to go look for it and go find it. Is that going to be hard to do? Sure. Some of these are very politically sensitive areas, very politically sensitive, which is why today, for political intrigue and fodder, the Democrats rushed to the floor saying, we are supporting all of these constituent groups, and we are supporting them so much we will support them when there is mismanagement, when there is waste, when there is fraud within the system. We are not willing to challenge our committees to go and get that job done.

The second thing they say is that, what we are going to do about this is we are going to trim back the tax cut. The tax relief in the House- passed budget estimates it will create about 1.4 million jobs. How many jobs do Members want to create? Obviously, not 1.4 million. About half that? It is 1.4 million jobs. Why is it that they want to eliminate the opportunities under this growth package?

And what is more important, going to your second point here about the Social Security trust fund, is that the best way to create money in the Social Security trust fund is to create workers. That is who pays the bills, who pays the Social Security money in the first place, the people who are working. The more people you create, the more jobs you create, the more people you have working, the more money that goes into the trust fund. And so by eliminating jobs by suggesting that you do not want to create these jobs at a time when our economy is struggling does the biggest disservice to the Social Security trust fund.

So I would rather you come here today and basically say that the General Accounting Office, which does all of these reports on the defense, food stamps, here is one on debt collection, here is one on the Defense Department again, public housing, here is a good one on the post office, Federal loans, defense again, foreign assistance, we have got travel cards in the Defense Department and across the country or across the government that are being abused. You do not want to do anything about that. You do not want to do anything about waste, fraud and abuse. That is what we are asking for. And so you come down here today, and you want to basically tie the hands of the conferees and say you do not want to instruct any of the committees to do this job.

Well, we reject that. We are not going to get, we know, all of the waste, fraud and abuse in the first budget, maybe not in the second budget. We may not get much at all, but you have got to start somewhere. And to suggest there is not even a penny, to basically say eliminate it all, eliminate any attempt to go find wasteful Washington spending, to me I think is a disservice. And so even though this is a nonbinding motion to instruct conferees and certainly the minority has an opportunity to come down here and make this motion, it really shows your cards.

It shows that you do not really have a concern about some of these programs and their usefulness, finding the waste and the fraud and abuse within our Federal Government. That is what it shows to me, and I think it shows that to the American people. There is not a person in America that does not believe there is waste in Washington. There is not a person, certainly not a person I have ever run into. I hope if there is somebody, you would let me know because I have not met one yet who does not think there is some waste in Washington.

But your motion to instruct conferees says no there is no waste in Washington. We do not have to do our work. Let us just keep this automatic spending going right on automatically down the line. Let us not worry about it at all. Let us not create those jobs. Let us back down the tax relief. Let us not create taxpayers so we can replenish the Social Security trust fund. Let us not do that, and let us continue on business as usual in Washington.

Well, we do not want to do that. We want to make sure that the conferees, I hope to be one of them, of course, continues to work for waste, fraud and abuse; and that is why we are going to continue that job even in the face of the Democrats coming here today suggesting that there is no waste in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I believe the gentleman has quite a bit of time remaining on his side for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is correct. If you take the tax number in the bill in the resolution at 726 and what the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) motion to instruct conferees backs out, which is $212 billion of what they say, you know, there is no waste in Washington, yes, you would arrive at a tax number of about $514 billion.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I understand what you are saying because I certainly want to defend the budget that I helped pass. While this technically is a nonbinding motion, I want to understand what we are suggesting here.

The Democrats are coming here and basically suggesting that even though we do not want to reduce the tax number, that they would be willing to go to $514 billion. I do not like that number. I would rather stay at 726. I met very briefly with the chairman of the Senate budget committee today, and I told him that is what I am still interested in doing. But if we can get some agreement here, if the Democrats are willing

to come to the floor today and support a number in the tax bill of $514 billion, at least that would be a more positive signal than what came out of the Senate.

So I still believe there is waste in Washington. I hate the first instruction in here that says that over the next 10 years we cannot even find a penny of waste, is what the Democrats said, not a penny. Nowhere is there waste in Washington. I hate that instruction. Of all of the instructions, that is the one that probably turns my stomach more than any of them. But if the majority leader is interested in this, I certainly would be willing to consider agreeing to the motion and urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to agree to a number of about $514 billion.

Certainly at a time when Americans across the country are looking to get back to work and we are looking to try and create jobs, a tax number of $514 billion is certainly, probably a good day's work. So I appreciate the gentleman analyzing the amendment and coming to that very interesting conclusion.

You know what will be interesting now, to see whether or not the Democrats even support their own motion.

I have a suspicion that the Democrats do not even support $514 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time on this motion to instruct conferees on a $514 billion tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time on the Democrat motion to cut taxes by $514 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the time on the Democrat motion to cut taxes by $514 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say, no, that is not what it says. It says cut taxes $1.1 billion and freeze veterans benefits. That is what the other side's motion to instruct says.

You have to read it. You wrote it; you read it. I do not like it, because, quite honestly, I think our budget was better. But if the other side is going to instruct us, at least know what you are instructing us. You are instructing us to freeze on spending at 2003 levels, and you are saying cut taxes by at least $1.1 trillion. That is what the letter of the law in the instruction says.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has a great speech writer, but the speech writer failed to read the budget. Great speech, but the speech writer did not read the budget.

School lunches are not mentioned in the budget. It is not in there. Education, not even mentioned. There are no cuts in education. There are no cuts to seniors. We cannot find farmers in here. Hospitals, we will not find the word ``hospital'' in the budget. No, that is not what a budget is about. The gentlewoman knows that. Student loans, that is not mentioned in the budget. Cuts to the school lunch program, she claims. School lunch program is not in here.

See, the interesting thing about it is that Democrats come running to the floor claiming there is no waste in Washington. So very hastily they draw up a motion to instruct conferees. And what does that motion say? It says there is no waste in Washington. The Democrats cannot find one penny of waste in Washington. So instead of finding waste and instead of adopting the Republican-passed budget, what should we do?

Well, it says right here in black and white, let us reduce those instructions so what we end up with is a freeze in spending. So they are freezing school lunches and veterans benefits, freezing hospitals, freezing student loans, freezing all these things that they are talking about. They come running to the floor breathlessly to discuss this and send their press releases and play political games about a motion to instruct.

That is not what this is about. But that is what the other side of the aisle is saying. What do they do with the so-called ``savings'' of just freezing spending? They want to reduce the tax cut. We happen to support a $1.3 trillion tax cut. By reducing this, what the Democrats come running here to the floor today to support is a $1.1 trillion tax cut.

Well, we have considered it. It is not what we passed. We would rather find waste in Washington. We do not want to just freeze spending. We would rather go through each and every program and find the savings, find the waste and the abuse, so the money and the programs go to the intended purpose. But instead, what the Democrats want to do is freeze spending. All right, I guess we can consider doing that when we get to conference.

So I would encourage my Republican colleagues to vote for the Spratt motion to instruct conferees that freezes spending. That is at least a good start. I think we could do better, but I think this is at least a good start to freeze spending. Of course, freezing spending at the 2003 level is a cut, is a cut from the increase that was anticipated, the anticipated increase that the other side of the aisle sometimes comes to the floor and claims that we provide cuts in.

So 2003 levels in a 2004 budget is what the other side of the aisle is supporting.

The second thing they say is, reduce the tax cut by that amount. We have done the math. We have read the black and white letters of the motion to instruct conferees, and the math is very simple. We come up with $1.1 trillion worth of tax relief. That is far and above where the Senate was. That is not where the House wanted to be, but we think it is at least worthy of taking into consideration in the conference.

So I believe even though we can find more waste in Washington than what the Democrats are suggesting, and we can have more tax reform and more simplification and more reduction in taxes to create jobs, even though I believe those things, I believe we should support this motion to instruct conferees. It is nonbinding, it is political, but I think they have been hoisted by their own petard.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 44, a resolution expressing support for 150th anniversary celebrations of the Grand Excursion of 1854.

In 1854, the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad became the first American railroad to reach the shores of the Mississippi River. To celebrate the achievement, a combined railroad and riverboat trip was organized. A group of 1,000 dignitaries including journalists, educators, and business representatives gathered in Chicago to start their journey. The Grand Excursion, as it became known, traveled by train for Rock Island, IL. From there, the journey proceeded by riverboat on the Mississippi River to the present-day twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN.

The Mississippi is widely and appropriately recognized as ``America's River.'' Today's Mississippi is a vital artery for commerce, economic development and tourism in Iowa's communities along the river. The river has shaped much of the Nation's history and will be a vital element for Iowa's future.

Next year, events are planned to mark the 150th anniversary of the Grand Excursion all along its 419-mile route. In my Iowa district, these events include celebrations in the riverside cities of Davenport, Clinton, and Dubuque. These exciting celebrations will share with the world the incredible attributes of the upper Mississippi River. Thousands of visitors will learn more about the river's role in America's history, and will learn more about Eastern Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of the communities celebrating this historic trek's anniversary. I look forward to welcoming visitors from around the world to experience our mighty Mississippi. As Captain Russell Blakeley said in 1894, ``the success of [the Grand Excursion] did more than the best laid plans for advertising the country than has ever been made since. . . . Good results came back to us in a thousand ways and for many years.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 919.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I rise only to take a moment to thank my colleague and ranking member from South Carolina for his work in trying to conform this important provision within both of our budgets. We may have some disagreement throughout the day here on a number of provisions, but procedurally we usually have an esprit de corps and unanimity. In this instance I will not object. This is an appropriate thing for the gentleman to do. I made a similar manager's amendment at Rules last night, and this allows us to conform the budget, so I will not object.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 7 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks with regard to the budget we are about to consider.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin by thanking our staff from the Committee on the Budget. They have worked enormously hard to bring us to this point in time where we are able to come to the floor to talk about the budget. Usually we reserve this to the end of the debate, but I just want to thank them because we are at a very unique time in our history. It requires some difficult choices. It requires us to analyze the situation very carefully. We have good people that work for us in both the majority and minority. I want to thank them for the work that they do. They have been asked to do a job, they do it, they do it well, and we find ourselves on the floor ready to debate the bill on time and ready to debate the budget within the procedure that we laid out at the beginning of the year.

Similarly, we ask young men and women overseas to do a job today. They are doing it in fine fashion. They represent us well. They represent our hopes and our dreams. They represent our freedom. They represent America. We are proud of our troops. We are proud of the job that they do, and we are proud that they do the job without blinking an eye, without any hesitation.

I believe they would ask the same of us here today, that while there are certainly trials and tribulations that confound us around the world today, that we do our work, that we are not distracted by a tyrant in Baghdad, and we are not distracted by terrorism around the world. It would be very easy to be distracted by that. It would be very easy to suggest, let's maybe wait for another day. But I think what America demands is that we continue the work of freedom, we continue the work of democracy. That is what they are fighting for, and that is what we need to do as well.

Mr. Chairman, we are at war. I did not have to practice that part of the speech because we were at war even before last night. We are at war against

international terrorism. The President determined that soon after September 11, 2001. That war continues. The fact that we opened up another front last night and that we will continue to pursue that front should not deter us, and we need to plan for it within our budgets. We need to take that into consideration as we debate this budget here today. So we are debating a wartime budget at a time during very difficult economic challenges and at a time when we face deficits for this foreseeable future.

None of us, at least most of us, do not want deficits. In fact, I said in my very first opening statement at the committee this year that I do not like deficits, I do not want deficits, and I will not pretend to this body, to my colleagues, to the President, to the Senate, or to my constituents at home that deficits do not matter. However, we are faced with that; and all of the yelling and screaming and all of the finger-pointing in the world and all of the things that might go on here today will not change that fact, and in fact no one today is bringing forth a budget that balances today or even this year or even next year.

In fact, none of the budgets before us balance, and there is a reason. Because this did not just happen overnight. While there are some who will come here today and blame and finger-point and suggest that the surpluses disappeared because of tax cuts, I would suggest that there are many reasons, many reasons why we face deficits here today.

It is true that just 2 years ago we faced surpluses and we decided to do something about that. We made a very deliberate decision that when Washington has more resources than it needs to meet those challenges in peace time at that time, that it is appropriate to say let us get the economy going again. Remember where we were, the economy was sluggish. President Bush came into office facing a recession. So we decided we were going to reduce taxes and certainly the tax reduction did reduce the surplus. That is represented by this blue amount.

But spending and the economy took most of the surplus and spending on what? An emergency. September 11, 2001, the emergency facing New York, the emergency facing the Pentagon, the emergency facing the airlines, the emergency facing homeland security. In an appropriate bipartisan response, every one of us came to the floor and said it is time to increase spending for those very appropriate purposes. And in addition to that in a bipartisan way, we came to the floor and said we need to cut taxes even further in order to stimulate the economy because the preattack recession got worse. So cheerfully, as a body, we decided it was time to spend a little bit more, stimulate the economy; and as a result, the tax cut took part of it, the spending took part of it, but the economic changes, the economy, the gut punch that each one of us faced whether it was home savings, whether it was increased prices around the kitchen table we had to deal with, whether it was just balancing our own budget around our kitchen table with our family, each one of us was affected by what happened in September of 2001, and certainly it affected our budget.

So we can finger-point, and we can talk about the past, and we can talk about Reagan and Clinton and Bush and, I do not know, maybe somebody even mentioned Roosevelt here today. The fact of the matter is that we are in deficit and we have to do something about it. But we do not start behind the eight ball. We build upon some huge amounts of spending.

Let me show what we have been doing the last 10 years around here. Cheerfully, and again oftentimes in a bipartisan way, look at the spending, each year increasing. In 1993 when President Clinton took office, we had a $1.4 trillion budget. What are we proposing today? $2.1 trillion, a 50 percent increase just since 1993, 4.5 percent each year. So when people go home and they start talking about how kids are going to be thrown out in the street and education is going to be cut and health care is going to be ruined, please remember that before we even talk about this year's budget, we have been increasing spending steadily during that period of time, and I will tell my colleagues when it really took off. When it really took off was when we got to balance in 1998.

Let me show what I mean by that. If we take the spending that we control every year, called discretionary spending or the spending from the appropriation bills, discretionary spending was holding its own, holding its own as we tried to get to balance since we became the majority, and then at 1998 all of a sudden look at it take off. In 1998 we had about $511 billion spent on discretionary spending, and just this last year in the bill that we just finished a month ago, we were at $768 billion, or an average of 7.7 percent each year since we reached balance. So when people talk about how, oh, boy, this cut is going to be tough or there might be ways that this could hurt folks or, boy, there is not a lot of waste, fraud abuse or excess, please remember that we build upon a huge base of spending in discretionary.

Let us look at some of the individual programs. I have heard a lot of talk lately about how Medicare is being devastated by this budget, budgets that were proposed, budgets that we will vote on here today, and budgets that we will consider. Since 1995 when the Republicans took the majority of Congress, we have increased spending for Medicare 56 percent. Was that appropriate? Yes. No one is suggesting it was not, but when people talk about how Medicare is being devastated, it is not because of the spending that Medicare is in trouble. It is because the way the program operates. I can tell you in Iowa people are very happy with Medicare; so to suggest that all we need to do is add more money into Medicare and everything will be fine does not recognize that Iowa does not get a fair shake from Medicare. Many other States, Wisconsin and others, do not get a fair shake from Medicare. So to suggest that all we need to do is pile more money on to Medicare, do not touch the program, just add more benefits and everything will be fine is sticking our heads in the sand. It will not work. But again we build upon some huge increases.

I have heard Governors suggest that Medicaid is in trouble and how the Federal Government has not done its fair share with regard to Medicaid. Look at the Medicaid budget since we became the majority in 1995. It was $89 billion of our budget. Today it has increased 77 percent since we became the majority. We have supported the health care for the poor and the disabled in this country to the point now where again we will continue in this budget to increase Medicaid.

Let us look at education because oftentimes education is used in a partisan way to suggest we do not care about children. Education spending under the Republican majority has doubled. It has doubled. Special education has tripled as a result of the Republican majority again as we move into this budget. This is what we build upon. There are accomplishments that we should be proud of. But when people whine and complain and suggest we are not spending enough, can we ask the question, what did we get for this? Which is why last year we said we need some accountability within our system and not just pour more money into it.

I have a number of very important constituents in my district who are veterans who before last night did their part to defend America and give us the ability to stand here today in peace and freedom in this country and debate issues of importance. And what have we done for them? Again, we build upon some important accomplishments. Spending has grown 40 percent since we reached balanced budget, an average of 6.9 percent each year. This budget will continue that trend with a 7 percent increase for veterans healthcare spending.

So let us look at what the budget is going to do. First of all, I want to put it into context. There is no question that we have three important issues as we come to the table today to discuss the budget, and some of these are even bipartisan, believe it or not. Number one is protecting America. There is not a person who is going to come to the floor today who does not feel that that is the most important thing that we do, and I compliment all of the budgets with regard to that issue. When it comes to homeland security, when it comes to national defense, certainly there will always be those who say we

can do more. In fact, there has even been a few who have suggested that there is a lot of waste within the Pentagon, and I would concur with that. But at this time in our history where our men and women are in the battlefields of Kuwait and Iraq and Saudi Arabia, we need to make sure that we support them; and each one of the budgets that comes here today does just that. It also supports homeland security.

The second most important issue that we have is making sure the economy gets growing again, making sure folks have a job. Because while we are going to talk a lot today about the Federal budget, we all know that the most important budget to each and every one of us is the one that I debate with my wife around my kitchen table and that my colleagues may debate with their families around their kitchen table and our constituents debate with their families around their kitchen table when they are trying to figure out how to pay the phone bill and the light bill and the college tuition and buy the clothes for their kids and the washer that breaks down or whatever it might be. That is the budget that matters; and if one does not have a job and if the economy is not growing in their household, it does not matter what we are debating.

Get a fancy chart. It does not matter what the fancy chart says if one's checkbook does not balance. So unless our budget puts as a top priority getting the economy to grow and create jobs, we have failed, in my estimation, and that is why the most important second issue that we put forth today is getting the economy to grow. It used to be a slogan. I remember hearing it a few years back: ``It's the economy, stupid.'' Maybe that was not an appropriate way to say it, but the point of the matter was important. Make sure the economy is taken care of.

The third issue, and it is an important one as we look forward into the future because again I think there is bipartisan support for this as well, and that is fiscal responsibility. We have all given spellbinding speeches about how the government cannot spend more than it takes in. But do my colleagues know what? There are some times when that has to happen, and by and large we agree when those times are. When there is a war, I do not think anybody begrudges anybody to borrow some money to do that. We have got to take care of business, and we will spend anything it takes to make sure we win and our folks have the right equipment and the right training. The second time we do it is when our country is under attack. Homeland security, again, each and every one of us came down here and cast a vote in support of homeland security spending even though it caused deficits. And there is another time we would do it, and that is when we have a recession or an economic downturn, and both parties during their histories have had to make that challenge. So while we are faced with those challenges, we still want to keep our eye on that fiscal responsibility.

So how do we do it in this budget? We ask a simple thing. We say out of the billions of dollars that we spend around here, do the Members think we could find a penny on the dollar? Most people back home in Iowa tell me I bet we could find a nickel on the dollar. In fact, we have heard amazing stories of people who are deceased getting checks from the Veterans Administration. We have even heard of Social Security recipients who are overseas that we send a check to. We have heard about food stamps that have been stolen. We have heard about all sorts of crazy things involving credit cards at the Pentagon where people have been using it for their own personal expenses.

Tell me there is not a penny on the dollar. Tell me that the earned income tax credit has not been abused. Tell me that Medicare, according to the General Accounting Office, has not had overpayments and erroneous payments. Tell me that at the end of the year bureaucrats do not run in to their boss and say, You know what? We have got extra money in our budget. We had better use it or we are going to lose it. And what we do in this budget is we say each and every committee can find that, and is it not now the time to find it when every State and every family and every business is doing the exact same thing? The Federal Government cannot do that too?

So fiscal responsibility is an important part of it. But we are still going to hear people come to the floor today and talk about deep and devastating, ``excruciating'' was a word I have heard recently, deep and excruciating cuts. Let me show the Members what our budget does. First of all, total budget, here is our budget. This is where we actually are, and look what happens under the budget. It goes up every single year in total spending. So the total budget is not cut.

Let us look at another area. Let us look at non-Social Security mandatory spending. What is that? That is Medicare and all the other, what we call, entitlements or automatic spending. Does that get cut? Every year it has been going up. Every year under the budget it continues to go up.

All right. Well that is not cut.

Let us look at Medicare maybe, see if Medicare is cut. Under our budget, every year it goes up. In our budget it continues. In fact, we say let us modernize it and put in, for the fourth year in a row, a Republican version of a prescription drug package. We are the only body that has passed one, and we will do it again this year, to make sure we modernize the program and make sure that reimbursements and other modernizations for the Medicare program help ensure its seriousness as a health care delivery program for years into the future. So Medicare is not cut.

Well, all right, let us look at total discretionary spending, which includes defense and homeland security. No, that is not cut. Every year it has gone up. In fact, look what happens here. Huge increases. It looks like it slows down here.

Why does it slow down? Because this is where the budget asks for some relief. It says this first year, outside of defense and homeland security and veterans, we just want to look for a little bit of waste, just a little bit of waste.

If there is a Member of Congress that goes home to tell their constituents that there is not any waste in Washington, I want you to ask them if they have read the volumes of General Accounting Office reports that indicate billions of dollars of waste, or the inspector generals that work for the departments that have identified billions of dollars of waste, or if they have talked to the Congressional Budget Office or held hearings on this in committees, because until they do that, do not tell people that there is not wasteful Washington spending. We know there is. For the first time in quite a while, we go after it.

Are we looking to cut some spending there? Yes. But do not believe that we are going to throw people out on the street. You do not have to do that in order to find the waste within the program. Everybody has heard about the $500 hammers and the toilet seats in the Pentagon and all those kinds of crazy programs that we hear about all the time. That is what we are asking people to go find, a penny on the dollar. That is not that much to ask, when we are at the same time running the kinds of deficits we find ourselves in.

So protecting America, that is first; getting the economy to grow, that is an important second thing to do; third, let us do it in a fiscally responsible way. I believe if we build on those three functions, without raising taxes, without huge spending increases, I think we can get this under control, support our troops in the Gulf right now and around the world defending our freedom, and do so in a way that is fiscally responsible, and gets us back to balance in a very reasonable time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, we built our budget upon three principles, the first of which is protecting America.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) to discuss that issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, in Washington sometimes people define cuts not as less money than the year before, but as decreases in anticipated increases. The gentleman who just spoke has issued yet a new one, that is, if we used to have a draft of a budget that possibly found some savings, now we can come and claim that as a cut. We are not cutting Medicare; we are increasing it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) to continue the discussion on national defense.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I have to scratch my head and wonder out loud how, when we increase the veterans budget in our budget 6.1 percent, the other side of the aisle can call that a cut, yet that is what Member after Member comes to the floor and says.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on the Budget, to discuss the second important plank of our budget, and that is economic growth and job creation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, just to respond to the points on the veterans' issues. First of all, we increase discretionary spending 6.1 percent on veterans, we increase the mandatory spending 7 percent, and they call that a cut. They ask us to honor veterans. In fact, in this country we honor veterans so much that we paid 5,500 of them benefits after they were dead. That is how much we honor veterans. That is why we need to look at every program for waste and abuse.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the committee.

(Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, that sounds pretty close. It is about as balanced as any of the budgets.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I have been looking through my budget, and I cannot find one of the facts that the gentleman just stated. Not one of the cuts he just stated is in my budget document. I have looked through there. I cannot find them. I do not know where the gentleman is coming up with these numbers.

I will say this, though: the person I would like to introduce next to speak basically wrote title II, which is our reconciliation construction regarding waste, fraud, and abuse, asking the committees to go out and look for those instances of waste, fraud, and abuse, ways that we can find deficiencies within this budget, and that is the very distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to close the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as I may consume. I respectfully claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, obviously I support the work of the committee, the underlying resolution, the budget resolution that is forwarded today. I want to thank the Blue Dog Coalition for coming forth with yet another budget proposal this year. I believe this is a consistent track record for the Blue Dogs in providing a budget resolution for consideration. We will disagree with that budget here today as they disagree with our budget, but I want to start by complimenting them because even last year at a time when the minority did not come forward with a caucus position, the Blue Dogs did. And the so-called Blue Dogs in this instance have done so again and I want to respect that. Only people who have actually gone through the process of writing a budget know how difficult that task can be in making some of the choices one has to make in order to arrive at this.

I disagree with their approach, however, for a number of reasons. First of all, I do not believe what they are putting forward supports our economy. I believe what we need right now is a growth package. The President has put that forward. We indicated that the second most important part of our budget is providing growth to the economy to create jobs. We believe we need tax simplification. We believe we need tax reform. We believe we need to lower the tax on the American people at a time of recession, not just for the sake of lowering taxes but because we know, we have seen this happen in the past many times in history where when we reduce the tax burden on America, when we reduce it particularly to a level at or below the average of taxes and revenues compared to the gross domestic product, that that does have a growth effect, a stimulative effect, on the economy.

And so while we will agree today on national defense and homeland security, probably the biggest departure we will see between these two budgets is regarding growth in the economy and creating jobs. We just happen to believe on our side that getting a growth package through to create jobs is vitally important. We are also going to have a semantical debate here today. I do not want to throw gasoline on the fire, so I am going to try not to. But I have to say that if we are not going to continue an already-reduced reduction in taxes, I mean I do not know what we call that. I know many on my side have come down here and I know it makes my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition cringe when they hear it when we have heard on our side that that be explained as a tax increase, but you might be able to understand why you cringe when you see us cringe when a reduction in the anticipated increase is called a cut.

And time after time today we have seen Members come to the floor on the other side of the aisle and explain that we are making excruciating cuts in veterans and education and Medicare and Medicaid and all sorts of different programs when in fact that is simply not the case. One not only cannot find it within our budget document, but in fact that is not the choice that we request. What we request is that we go through the budget and we look for waste, fraud, and abuse and places where we have been spending money we did not have to, and we do not have all of them but these are just some examples that you do not ask us to go after: Foreign Assistance, the Effectiveness and Accountability of Problems Common to U.S. Programs, Taking Strategic Approach for DOD and the Acquisition of Services, Implementation of an Electronic Benefit Transfer System in the Food Stamp Program, IRS's Efforts to Improve Compliance with the Employment Tax.

I mean, all of these save money. All of these find places where we are just not doing a good job. All of these ought to be a hearing. All of these ought to be a place where we can introduce legislation and we can say that is not a cut. To go through this and to actually look at the General Accounting Office, and we pay them a lot of money. Talk about waste. If you are going to hire people to go through the programs from the General Accounting Office and then you do not even listen to them, my friend, the comptroller general, would not like my saying this, but why do we hire these folks to give us these good ideas of places we can reduce spending, not cutting benefits, not cutting services, not closing nursing homes, not cutting off senior citizens, not eliminating Meals on Wheels or food stamps or school lunches or, oh, my goodness, all of the things that people have come down here wringing their hands about today, but just going through here: Controlling the Weakness in Property Vulnerable to Improper Use, Loss and Theft. There is a real partisan issue, theft. I mean if we are stealing things from agencies, from departments, and I have heard everything from a 61-inch television; I mean, come on.

Does that balance the budget? No. We are not suggesting that alone balances the budget, but we have got to start somewhere.

I could go on. The Deteriorating Financial Outlook and the Need for Transformation in the Postal Service, Medicare, Medicaid, FAA. Here is one, let us see, Significant Weakness in the Computer Controls. And, in fact, I believe we spent $8 million trying to get the Department of Agriculture to go to a new computer system; and guess what, after I think 8 years and $8 million, they found out they could not go to the new system. So we just spent $8 million for nothing on that. Defense Acquisitions, Debt Collection, Food Stamps. Again, there is another one. But if we even look at food stamps, people will say we are somehow throwing the poor out in the street. Medicare, here we go again. Boy, do not touch Medicare, though. Do not even look there. Heaven forbid. It must be a perfect program. Just add more benefits, and it will be fine. I mean, we could go on and on. They are replete. I have got a whole pile over on this side. You do not look at that. And that is an important area where we believe it is time to challenge the committees to do the work to find the savings.

Last but not least, I believe that it is time that we do something together around here, and that is enforce the budget. I know that we are going to disagree today on a number of these topics. The thing that is so frustrating is when time after time Members, and it happens in the Blue Dogs, it happens on our side as well, where we come down here, we talk about our budgets and then during the appropriations process we blow through those things. We find different ways to come through the process without holding to the budget that we agreed to. I would hope that my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition more than anybody else, and I know they do, believe that once we have a budget, it is time to enforce it because if we cannot even enforce that, having this debate today is going to be meaningless.

So as I started off with today, we do not support just allowing these tax cuts to expire. We happen to believe that does increase the tax burden. We want to make sure that we have spending restraint. You claim to do it with interest payments; but we want to do it with actual spending, not just with interest payments; and we want to make sure that we figure out a way to grow the economy and create jobs. And for those reasons I respectfully oppose the Blue Dog budget, but wish them congratulations on actually creating one which is something that many people around here claim they want to do, but do not always accomplish.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

What?

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I can tell the gentleman

why. It is a frustration of mine, and it is the reason why I put the budget out that I did this year.

When we got to surplus, and we have seen the chart, when we got to balancing and began going into surplus, particularly into discretionary spending, all of us around here very cheerfully started getting into a bidding war. We could do a little better than you in education, you could do a little better than us in health care. We went on and on and on.

Look at the charts in any of those categories. Once 1998 happened, as my friend knows, we could not say no to anything. It was very difficult to try to control that. That is just the discretionary side, which, as the gentleman knows, is only one-quarter of the budget.

On the mandatory side, think of the last time in a partisan or bipartisan way that we tried to take on an entitlement and even tried to control spending. My friend has quite a bit of control or interest in agriculture, as do I. I sit on a committee that has jurisdiction over Medicare and welfare. We did it in welfare and had some real success.

I just want us to start looking at that process again. That is the reason in this budget I challenge the committees. I do not do it myself. I do not try and tell my good friend on the Committee on Agriculture exactly where that ought to come from. But I do challenge him to look at the reports on food stamps and others and say, can we not do a better job?

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is a good point. But that is just the first year. We believe that we need to continue to control that spending in the outyears as well.

We also believe, and that is the reason why the budget was presented the way it was, that the President had some areas where we could control. This was true with President Clinton, President Reagan, President Bush, with all of them.

Congress is responsible for controlling spending under Article I of the Constitution. We like to blame the fellow down the street, but, more often than not, it is the people that we look at every day in the mirror that can do the best job at controlling spending.

As I say, I compliment the gentleman and my friends for putting together a budget. We respectfully disagree with that budget for the reasons that I state.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear more from my friends in the coalition.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes just to show my colleague from Mississippi, who does care about this; I do not begrudge him that at all. I just want to let him know that I also share in the concern over debt. But since he was slightly partisan about the issue, let me show my colleagues my chart that shows the difference between what the Democratic Congresses did versus the Republican Congresses.

We were the ones who paid down the national debt by almost half a trillion dollars until we hit this last crisis in 2001 involving the economy, involving the emergency spending, involving what happened with homeland security. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues want to raise it to a partisan level of whose debt is whose, I can show my colleagues a chart that compares with the gentleman's partisan chart.

What I would rather do is say, look, we are in this together now. I can show a chart that goes back to Reagan. I can show a chart that goes back to Clinton. We can have a history lesson here all day long. We can yell and scream and point fingers at who did what.

Look, we are in a mess. My colleagues did not do it; I did not do it. I mean, there are three huge factors. We had emergency spending that no one, no one would have ever anticipated. What a huge economic sucker gut punch as a result of a recession that was made worse after 2001 and the terrorist attacks. Was there a component part of that of reducing taxes? Yes. We disagree. We deliberately reduced taxes at a time of huge surpluses because, yes, we were paying off the national debt, paid off over a half a trillion dollars of national debt.

So if my colleagues want to come down and point fingers and talk about the past, I can show my colleagues Reagan charts and Clinton charts and things like that.

I think we should talk about the future and what we are going to do about it. The Democrats have a plan. I compliment that plan, even though I disagree with it, because it does begin to address those issues. I have what we believe is a better plan. But let us talk about our plan and let us look forward. If my colleagues want to continue to point fingers on how we got here, my colleagues can take up the time for the substitute to do just that, but I believe we ought to focus on the future and what we are going to do about it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Texas and for my friends for writing a budget, because writing a budget in Washington, D.C. for the Federal Government is not maybe the most challenging job in Washington, but it does have its moments of challenges.

Probably one of the biggest challenges in writing a budget, as my friends know, is when we have to explain to politicians who get elected by saying yes that sometimes we have to say no, or sometimes we have to do things that are difficult.

There is no question that when I wrote the original draft of this budget, I asked my colleagues to do something that was difficult. It maybe was more difficult than I had either the right to ask or the ability to ask; but I asked it, not because I thought it was easy, but because I thought it was important for us to at least begin the debate.

Particularly in Medicare, that is a debate that I recognize probably as being difficult maybe more than most Members because I have spent the last 12 years being stung by attacks from opponents back home who, in years where we did nothing to Medicare, were able to come up with phantom votes here and there suggesting that somehow, again, as a Republican, I think maybe just because I registered to vote as a Republican, that somehow I was cutting Medicare. It must be something that is just automatic when you become a Republican, it seems, these days.

But it could not be further from the truth. When it comes to our budgets in Medicare and so many of these programs, as my friends know, particularly since 1998, we have just been spending money around here like it is going out of style in every category. We almost cannot name a category that has gone down by any significant portion over the last 5 years, in particular, since we got the balance.

So it was not so much that I was saying cut, but I was saying slow down. That is all I was trying to say was slow down. That is what I was trying to say in Medicare was slow down. We had put $400 billion in. I asked them to look for that waste within Medicare. We know it is there. I have three great examples that came out of those blue books we were talking about.

The Medicare program pays as much as eight times, just think about this, I would say to my friends, eight times the cost of any other Federal agency when we pay for the same drugs and medical supplies. I do not know, maybe double would be a reasonable level; but eight times does not make much sense to me.

Medicare provides overpayments of $12.1 billion in 1 year. All right? That is just another example.

In 2002, it was estimated that improper, and that is in addition to overpayments, we are talking about just plain improper, fraudulent payments under Medicare were estimated at $13 billion. Let me quickly do the math: 13, 12, that is 25. We do not even know what the cost of the drugs are, but that is $25 billion in 1 year, as an example.

I do not know about the other Members, but that pays for a lot of prescription drugs for seniors. Just in the first year of the drug benefit that almost all of us support, we are only talking about $7 billion as a drug benefit. That is just the first year of the phase-in. That is three times, almost four times, the amount of the initial drug benefit we waste in the Medicare program. That is before we even talk about reimbursements.

My friend, the gentleman from Texas, and I have been laboring on the Rural Health Care Coalition since I think the day the gentleman walked in this place, and certainly the day I walked in. Medicare is not serving our seniors because of a crazy reimbursement system that has been out there. But we come down here to the well and we say, oh, gosh, do not touch that, it is Medicare.

Heaven forbid we would try and do something around here in any of these programs in order to try to control them, because around here in Washington our level of compassion and concern has been equal to the amount of money we are willing to put into the program.

So instead of saying to Medicare, the Defense Department, agriculture, I do not care what it is, instead of saying, where did that $13 billion go; we are not going to give it to you again next year until you find it, instead, what we say is, oh, quick, quick, let us pass a budget that puts in $400 billion more.

Let us hurry up and do that because heaven forbid we would look at a senior citizen straight in the eye and say, Do you know what? The program is not working as well as it should. It is not doing the job we promised; it is wasting money.

So that is what I was asking for. The gentleman is right, I did not get the votes for that. We will live to have that discussion another day because my guess is that in order for the actual bill to come to the floor, we are going to have to make some of those adjustments.

I could go on. That is the most politically sensitive one in the bunch. I could go on and on through less politically sensitive issues. But what I am asking us to do, and it is article 1 of the Constitution that I believe gives us that responsibility. The gentleman showed a chart that defines it by President. I could show a chart, and I know we are talking about the partisan jabs, I could show a chart that showed the exact same figures but showed them under Republican and Democratic Congresses.

It does not matter, as I said to my friend from Mississippi, it does not matter what happened in the past. It matters what we look to do in the future. My colleagues have got a plan. We disagree with it because it does not, we do not believe, do the one thing that we believe can help us here the most, and that is stimulate the growth in the economy that brings in so much of the revenue that we need.

The second thing it really does not do, and we disagree with the President on this, mostly not because we disagree with the President, but because it is our job to control spending. If we do not do it by the time the bill gets to his desk, it is not going to get done, and so that is why we asked for the waste, fraud and abuse within these reconciliation instructions.

Last but not least, and I think my friend wants us to yield, the balanced budget amendment, and I am a cosponsor and have been and voted for it. The one problem with a balanced budget amendment, of course, is it takes about 8 years to get it into place, and what we said in 1995 and what we are both saying here today in a bipartisan way, regardless of our plan, let us just do it. Forget about the amendment for a second. Let us do it. Let us actually go in

and balance it as opposed to just saying that we ought to have a constitutional amendment to do it.

The one thing the balanced budget amendment does provide is an exception. Two things actually. One is national emergency, and certainly I think September 11, obviously we in a bipartisan way agree that that is a national emergency; and the second is war, and clearly, we are in a war. So while I support that, I think we ought to just do it.

We put ourselves on a path under both of our plans, but we believe ours is a better path, and that is the reason.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments.

As I say, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's and the Blue Dogs' substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time in opposition be divided evenly between the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and myself.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.

The gentleman is correct.

That is correct.

I believe that is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

If the gentleman will yield, I would be happy to respond.

That is my understanding. The budget is intended to protect farm programs and the crop insurance program. Our committee will work with the chairman and other members of the Committee on Agriculture such as yourself to ensure that we protect critical farm programs and the crop insurance program. This includes an adequate funding level for programs authorized under last year's farm bill.

The gentleman is correct. I appreciate his help and support in this endeavor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes for the purposes of entering into a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I yield to him for that purpose.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I thank the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for his work in getting us to this point in time. Obviously there are a number of challenges. I will continue to work with him and members of his committee as we go to conference. We have a huge issue this year, as the gentleman knows. It is going to fall on his committee. We have challenges we need to meet in all of the transportation needs of our country. So, yes, I would be happy to work with the chairman as we move to conference on this issue, and I appreciate his support of our resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 9 minutes be yielded to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) as long as he does not give me another zinger here.

Mr. Chairman, I will close our side of the debate, and I only have one speaker. I believe I have that opportunity to do so; so I allow the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) to go first.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we always hear a lot about history whenever the Democrats come to the floor to talk about the budget, and it is in part because they do not want to talk about the future. They really just want to talk about history. They want to redefine it, they want to recapture it, they want to put it in new context constantly.

How did we get here? Because of a war, because of a national emergency, and because of an economy that has been in recession, and we have to address all of those needs today. We have to have a plan for the future.

Just like we commended our troops tonight, it is time to do our job. Yes, it is late. Yes, there are people who are asked to do much harder work than we are asked to do. But it is time to do our part in all of this. This budget is just the first step.

I have heard people tonight on both sides of the aisle talk about all sorts of devastating things that might happen, devastating things that will happen, all sorts of policies that will flow from this budget that has not even passed yet, that has not even been conferenced with the Senate yet. We do not know where this process will end up, but I will guarantee you one thing: At the end of the day, no one will like it. No one will think it is a perfect budget. I can attest to that, because even though when I started this process I kind of liked what I wrote, by the end of it, I am not even sure I will recognize all of the details that are in this budget.

Why is that? Because 435 people in this body and 100 in the other body write the budget. This is not the Nussle budget, it is not the President's budget, it is not the Blue Dogs' or the Republican Study Committee's or the moderates' or the conservatives'. It is nobody's budget unless we get it done.

Why is it important for us to get it done? Because just last year we did not get it done. We passed one in the House, the other body did not pass a budget, and what happened? Gridlock, breakdown, 7 months of wrangling on the floor over 13 appropriations bills that only attributed one-third of all of the spending that Congress does and the Federal Government participates in. Seven months we spent over just one-third of the budget because of total budget breakdown.

So we need to pass a budget. We need a conference report. We need to have a plan. And what should that plan say? Well, we believe it needs three things:

Number one, it is not negotiable. We must protect America. That means strong national defense and homeland security that gives us the kind of security we need to have to ensure that we can protect freedom at home and freedom around the world.

Number two, we must strengthen the economy and create jobs. A person without a job is not paying any taxes, and a person who is not paying any taxes, more than anything else, knows that they are not able to make ends meet. A person with a job, that is the most important thing we can do is to get people back to work.

So, yes, we reduce taxes. Yes, we take on taxes, because they are too complicated, they are too high, they are too onerous, and it has gone on too long. We have got to do something about taxes. The President has put a plan on the table. Yes, we incorporate that plan in our budget, but it is a first step to getting us back to work as a country.

The third area is fiscal responsibility. Now, I have heard the gentleman from South Carolina, whom I greatly respect, say that we will not achieve these cuts. He is right. We are not going to achieve these cuts, because they are not cuts. How can you cut when you are only decreasing anticipated increases on the one hand, and, on the other hand, when it is waste?

Why is it in America, for some reason in Washington, that whenever an agency or department or program wastes money, we rush in and give it more?

GAO, our General Accounting Office, if you want to talk about waste, we hire great people who put together reams and volumes and all sorts of reports; defense acquisitions, financial management, FAA, Medicaid, Medicare, U.S. Postal Service, food stamp program, tax administration. It goes on and on and on in waste.

We are paying dead people benefits under the Veterans Administration. We are sending dead people checks under Social Security. There are folks in the Lorton prison that are getting benefits under welfare still. And this is under a reformed welfare system.

People will come up to me and say, ``Gosh, do you know what is really tough? We cannot find that waste. We are having a real tough time.'' And our friends on the other side are saying, ``You are cutting, throwing children in the street. People will be kicked out of nursing homes.''

We are after this. This is what we are after. We want to find the waste, fraud and abuse within our system. Is it going to be hard? You bet, because for 5 years we have not been doing it.

Five years ago we reached a balanced budget. Why? Because the Republicans took the majority. We put in a 7-year plan to balance the budget. We got there 4 years earlier than we said because the economy was growing, and we controlled spending. But when we got to balance, we stopped working on spending. We have got to get back to working on the spending side of the budget.

So, this is where I end here tonight with a quote. It is kind of an interesting quote, apropos for tonight, I believe. The quote is, ``We shall, therefore, neither postpone our tax cut plans nor cut into essential national security programs. This administration is determined to protect America's security and survival, and we are also determined to step up its economic growth. I think we must do both.''

President Kennedy said that in 1962. Let us do that job again tonight. Let us vote on the budget.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, this is a great pleasure for me. This is my resolution, and I cannot think of a prouder resolution and a more meaningful one to me to bring forward than this resolution here today.

A person's work here in Congress speaks much louder than rooms that are named after them or statues that may collect dust in the hallways. It is right and fitting and appropriate that we name this room after Dick Armey, but I can tell you that the Dick Armey I know cares very little about what room is named after him. He cares much more about the legacy he has left for his children and grandchildren and this great country we call America.

Some would say that the beauty of our democracy is that when somebody leaves the United States Congress they are quickly forgotten. In some respects that is sad, because we have some great Members who come through our body on both sides of the aisle, Members who go on to bigger and better things, some might say in the United States Senate or the other body as we refer to it, maybe down in the administration, maybe they go home and raise their family, open a business, teach school, whatever it might be. But the beauty of our system and our democracy really does lie in the fact that it is we the people, and that while one great Member passes, a new great Member can hopefully fill those shoes as we move forward.

Dick Armey speaks often about something very simple that I happen to believe is very profound. ``Freedom works'' is a slogan that he has coined, to some extent. It is a long way of saying we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It took a long sentence to get that out back in 1776, but today we can say it very simply as freedom works; freedom works in America, freedom works in our economy, freedom works in our workplace. Freedom may even work in Iraq. Freedom works in a lot of places, in a lot of places that we call America, and Dick Armey has helped bring freedom to our country.

It is an unusual procedure to bring a resolution to the floor to name anything in the United States Capitol. We do so only under very unusual circumstances. If you walk through the halls, you will find many great leaders with their name on the door. I believe it is appropriate that we take a pause today and name a room. But the name that I think that Dick Armey would find most appropriate on any room in this Capitol would be freedom.

The nice thing about this is that while I introduced this resolution, I did so with the full support of the Speaker of the House. I talked to him first, because you do not name rooms in the Capitol without talking to the Speaker. I also know I have the support of my entire conference. But what is even more enjoyable is to know we have the support of both sides of the aisle. Democrats who may have disagreed with Dick Armey during his term had an enormous amount of respect for him, even though there was disagreement oftentimes, and that is true, I think, for many leaders that Republicans look to on the Democratic side as well.

This is a bipartisan resolution. Former leader Armey is here in the Chamber today. I just want to say to my friend that this is as meaningful a public gesture as we can make, and we mean it with as much heartfelt wishes for you and your wife Susan, and the recognition that what you have done here has not been forgotten. Even though freedom works, our country continues, our democracy will flourish, and the Congress will continue to hopefully do good things that you will find enjoyable to watch from your new chair and your new seat.

Thank you very much for your service. We look forward to the opportunity when we can unveil this room some time in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 141) to improve the calculation of the Federal subsidy rate with respect to certain small business loans, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 141.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the very distinguished Committee on Small Business chairman, my neighbor and friend, brought to me a problem of the government overestimating SBA loan defaults and thereby excessively limiting the total number of small business loans made to small businesses in this country, brought that to my attention.

This was happening because OMB and SBA, the Office of Management and Budget and Small Business Administration, were insisting on using old data predating recent SBA loan reforms. We have been working together with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) to resolve this problem ever since.

Over a year ago, language was included in the fiscal year 2002 Treasury appropriations conference report requiring OMB and SBA to report to us on how and when the problem was going to be fixed. That report indicated that the problem would be addressed in the 2003 budget with the development of new economic models, which it was not.

Last year, the SBA subsidy rate problem was not fixed. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and I wrote to OMB Director Daniels requesting that the 2003 calculation be reviewed and that the subsidy rate be resubmitted to reflect a more accurate projection of the anticipated costs. Again, they were not.

Now, with the subsidy rate still not fixed, we offer this legislation as the solution, together with our colleagues in the other body. It will require that a new, better econometric model already developed by SBA and approved by OMB be implemented for the current fiscal year 2003 for calculating the 7(a) subsidy rate. This effectively requires OMB to follow through with their promise on a new model once and for all.

This model should now provide a more accurate estimate of defaults in the past, present, and future loan portfolio performance to better estimate the true cost to the government of guaranteeing these important loans to our small business community. This is a detriment because the Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires any and all losses from expected borrower defaults to be covered by the government in advance with an up-front appropriation. Therefore, a lower default rate means that the same amount of money goes out a lot further and covers many more loans due to the multiplier effect.

I am sure there are many small business people in our districts that have been contacting us about this. For me, I have a small business friend of mine, Bill Werger from Manchester, Iowa, who helped highlight this issue for me as he continues to struggle to open small businesses and provide economic development to a small town in Iowa.

I believe that if this is done correctly, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and I expect that this result will be in the billions of dollars of additional loans being made to the small businesses of this country. This is critical because this program will help many of those small businesses during this economic recovery with cautious lenders still limiting access to capital to very willing borrowers.

The SBA 7(a) program attacks this problem by guaranteeing these borrowers between 50 and 85 percent of the loans, as high as $2 million, for virtually every business purpose.

Equally important to me as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, however, this bill will not do this without directing the budgetary scoring of this correction; or in other words, it will require the problem be fixed by correcting the process and not by predetermining the outcome illegitimately. It does this by allowing the use of the most recently approved subsidy cost model and methodology but with the program and economic assumptions and the historical data which we included in the President's original fiscal year 2003 budget submission.

In other words, the Manzullo-Nussle-Snowe bill that we have before us today fixes the small business subsidy rate problem, thereby greatly increasing the number of loans to small businessmen and small businesswomen without compromising the process that OMB calculates the real cost to the Federal Government of providing these subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me thank the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Small Business. He has been tenacious in bringing this issue to the forefront, not only of my committee, the Committee on the Budget, but also to the attention of the Congress. He is a real champion of small business, and he is somebody that I am honored to have worked with very hard on this process. So I want to commend him on the bill that we have before us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I wish to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his bipartisan approach to this bill. It truly is a bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Small Business, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to allocate the time accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule XI, Clause 2 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules of the Committee on the Budget for the 108th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record.

Rules of the Committee on the Budget United States House of

Representatives, 108th Congress--Adopted February 4, 2003

General Applicability

Rule 1--Applicability of House Rules

Except as otherwise specified herein, the Rules of the

House are the rules of the committee so far as applicable,

except that a motion to recess from day to day is a motion of

high privilege.

Meetings

Rule 2--Regular meetings

(a) The regular meeting day of the committee shall be the

second Wednesday of each month at 11 a.m., while the House is

in session.

(b) The Chairman is authorized to dispense with a regular

meeting when the Chairman determines there is no business to

be considered by the committee. The Chairman shall give

written notice to that effect to each member of the committee

as far in advance of the regular meeting day as the

circumstances permit.

(c) Regular meetings shall be canceled when they conflict

with meetings of either party's caucus or conference.

Rule 3--Additional and special meetings

(a) The Chairman may call and convene additional meetings

of the committee as the Chairman considers necessary, or

special meetings at the request of a majority of the members

of the committee in accordance with House Rule XI, clause

2(c).

(b) In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the

Chairman shall provide written notice of additional meetings

to the office of each member at least 24 hours in advance

while Congress is in session, and at least three days in

advance when Congress is not in session.

Rule 4--Open business meetings

(a) Each meeting for the transaction of committee business,

including the markup of measures, shall be open to the public

except when the committee, in open session and with a quorum

present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the

remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the

public in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(1).

(b) No person other than members of the committee and such

congressional staff and departmental representatives as the

committee may authorize shall be present at any business or

markup session which has been closed to the public.

Rule 5--Quorums

A majority of the committee shall constitute a quorum. No

business shall be transacted and no measure or recommendation

shall be reported unless a quorum is actually present.

Rule 6--Recognition

Any member, when recognized by the Chairman, may address

the committee on any bill, motion, or other matter under

consideration before the committee. The time of such member

shall be limited to five minutes until all members present

have been afforded an opportunity to comment.

Rule 7--Consideration of business

Measures or matters may be placed before the committee, for

its consideration, by the Chairman or by a majority vote of

the members of the committee, a quorum being present.

Rule 8--Availability of legislation

The committee shall consider no bill, joint resolution, or

concurrent resolution unless copies of the measure have been

made available to all committee members at least four hours

prior to the time at which such measure is to be considered.

When considering concurrent resolutions on the budget, this

requirement shall be satisfied by making available copies of

the complete Chairman's mark (or such material as will

provide the basis for committee consideration). The provision

of this rule may be suspended with the concurrence of the

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member.

Rule 9--Procedure for consideration of budget resolution

(a) It shall be the policy of the committee that the

starting point for any deliberations on a concurrent

resolution on the budget should be the estimated or actual

levels for the fiscal year preceding the budget year.

(b) In the consideration of a concurrent resolution on the

budget, the committee shall first proceed, unless otherwise

determined by the committee, to consider budget aggregates,

functional categories, and other appropriate matters on a

tentative basis, with the document before the committee open

to amendment. Subsequent amendments may be offered to

aggregates, functional categories, or other appropriate

matters, which have already been amended in their entirety.

(c) Following adoption of the aggregates, functional

categories, and other matters, the text of a concurrent

resolution on the budget incorporating such aggregates,

functional categories, and other appropriate matters shall be

considered for amendment and a final vote.

Rule 10--Roll call votes

A roll call of the members may be had upon the request of

at least one-fifth of those present. In the apparent absence

of a quorum, a roll call may be had on the request of any

member.

hearings

Fule 11--Announcement of hearings

The Chairman shall make a public announcement of the date,

place, and subject matter of any committee hearing at least 1

week before the hearing, beginning with the day in which the

announcement is made and ending the day preceding the

scheduled hearing unless the Chairman, with the concurrence

of the Ranking Minority Member, or the committee by majority

vote with a quorum present for the transaction of business,

determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner,

in which case the Chairman shall make the announcement at the

earliest possible date.

Rule 12--Open hearings

(a) Each hearing conducted by the committee or any of its

task forces shall be open to the public except when the

committee or task force, in open session and with a quorum

present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the

remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the

public because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other

matters to be considered would endanger the national

security, or would compromise sensitive law enforcement

information, or would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate

any person, or would violate any law or rule of the House of

Representatives. The committee or task forces may be the same

procedure vote to close one subsequent day of hearing.

(b) For the purposes of House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(2), the

task forces of the committee are considered to be

subcommittees.

Rule 13--Quorums

For the purpose of hearing testimony, not less than two

members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.

Rule 14--Questioning witnesses

(a) Questioning of witnesses will be conducted under the

five-minute rule unless the committee adopts a motion

pursuant to House Rule XI clause 2(j).

(b) In questioning witnesses under the 5-minute rule, the

Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member may be recognized

first, after which members may be recognized in the order of

their arrival at the hearing. Among the members present at

the time the hearing is called to order, seniority shall be

recognized. In recognizing members to question witnesses, the

Chairman may take into consideration the ratio of majority

members to minority members and the number of majority and

minority members present and shall apportion the recognition

for questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage the

members of the majority.

Rule 15--Subpoenas and oaths

(a) In accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(m) subpoenas

authorized by a majority of the committee may be issued over

the

signature of the Chairman or of any member of the committee

designated by him, and may be served by any person designated

by the Chairman or such member.

(b) The Chairman, or any member of the committee designated

by the Chairman, may administer oaths to witnesses.

Rule 16--Witnesses' statements

(a) So far as practicable, any prepared statement to be

presented by a witness shall be submitted to the committee at

least 24 hours in advance of presentation, and shall be

distributed to all members of the committee in advance of

presentation.

(b) To the greatest extent possible, each witness appearing

in a nongovernmental capacity shall include with the written

statement of proposed testimony a curriculum vitae and a

disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program)

of any Federal grant (or sub-grant thereof) or contract (or

subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year

or either of the two preceding fiscal years.

prints and publications

Rule 17--Committee prints

All committee prints and other materials prepared for

public distribution shall be approved by the committee prior

to any distribution, unless such print or other material

shows clearly on its face that it has not been approved by

the committee.

Rule 18--Committee publications on the Internet

To the maximum extent feasible, the committee shall make

its publications available in electronic form.

Staff

Rule 19--Committee staff

(a) Subject to approval by the committee, and to the

provisions of the following paragraphs, the professional and

clerical staff of the committee shall be appointed, and may

be removed, by the Chairman.

(b) Committee staff shall not be assigned any duties other

than those pertaining to committee business, and shall be

selected without regard to race, creed, sex, or age, and

solely on the basis of fitness to perform the duties of

their respective positions.

(c) All committee staff shall be entitled to equitable

treatment, including comparable salaries, facilities, access

to official committee records, leave, and hours of work.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraphs a, b, and c, staff shall be

employed in compliance with House rules, the Employment and

Accountability Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and

any other applicable Federal statutes.

Rule 20--Staff supervision

(a) Staff shall be under the general supervision and

direction of the Chairman, who shall establish and assign

their duties and responsibilities, delegate such authority as

he deems appropriate, fix and adjust staff salaries (in

accordance with House rule X, clause ((c)) and job titles,

and, at his discretion, arrange for their specialized

training.

(b0 Staff assigned to the minority shall be under the

general supervision and direction of the minority members of

the committee, who may delegate such authority, as they deem

appropriate.

Records

Rule 21--Preparation and maintenance of committee records

(a) A substantially verbatim account of remarks actually

made during the proceedings shall be made of all hearings and

business meetings subject only to technical, grammatical, and

typographical corrections.

(b) The proceedings of the committee shall be recorded in a

journal, which shall among other things, include a record of

the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded.

(c) Members of the committee shall correct and return

transcripts of hearings as soon as practicable after receipt

thereof, except that any changes shall be limited to

technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections.

(d) Any witness may examine the transcript of his own

testimony and make grammatical, technical, and typographical

corrections.

(e) The Chairman may order the printing of a hearing record

without the corrections of any member or witness if he

determines that such member or witness has been afforded a

reasonable time for correction, and that further delay would

seriously impeded the committee's responsibility for meeting

its deadlines under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(f) Transcripts of hearings and meetings may be printed if

the Chairman decides it is appropriate, or if a majority of

the members so request.

Rule 22--Access to committee records

(a)(1) The Chairman shall promulgate regulations to provide

for public inspection of roll call votes and to provide

access by members to committee records (in accordance with

House Rule XI, clause 2(e)).

(2) Access to classified testimony and information shall be

limited to Members of Congress and to House Budget Committee

staff and staff of the Office of Official Reporters who have

appropriate security clearance.

(3) Notice of the receipt of such information shall be sent

to the committee members. Such information shall be kept in

the committee safe, and shall be available to members in the

committee office.

(b) The records of the committee at the National Archives

and Records Administration shall be made available for public

use in accordance with Rule VII of the rules of the House of

Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking

Minority Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3)

or clause 4(b) of the rule, to withhold a record otherwise

available, and the matter shall be presented to the committee

for a determination on the written request of any member

of the committee.

oversight

Rule 23--General oversight

(a) The committee shall review and study, on a continuing

basis, the application, administration, execution, and

effectiveness of those laws, or parts of laws, the subject of

which is within its jurisdiction.

(b) The committee is authorized at any time to conduct such

investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or

appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under

clause (1)(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House, and,

subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as required by

clause 6 of Rule X, to incur expenses (including travel

expenses) in connection therewith.

(c) Not later than February 15 of the first session of a

Congress, the committee shall meet in open session, with a

quorum present, to adopt its oversight plans for that

Congress for submission to the Committee on House

Administration and the Committee on Government Reform in

accordance with the provisions of clause (2)(d) of House Rule

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue to Iowa and many States, but am I understanding the gentleman correctly? Not only will it kill this bill but does it not also shut down the government? So if I vote for this and it fails and the CR does not pass, it shuts down the government and we do not get anything we want?

Mr. Speaker. I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2003 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional budget Act and section 301 of House Concurrent Resolution 353, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House. This status report is current through January 27, 2003.

The ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature.

The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 353. The comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2003 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered.

The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 353 for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2003 through 2007. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. A separate allocation for the Medicare program, as established under section 231(d) of the budget resolution, is shown for fiscal year

2003 and fiscal years 2003 through 2012. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a).

The third table gives the current level for 2004 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 301 of H. Con. Res. 353 printed in the Congressional record. This list is needed to enforce section 301 of the budget resolution,which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Report to the Speaker from the Committee on the Budget

Mr. Speaker, section 3(a)(4) of House Resolution 5 provides that House Concurrent Resolution 353 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress, as adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the House as though the One Hundred Eight Congress has adopted a concurrent resolution on the budget. That paragraph also directs me to submit for printing in the Congressional Record: (1) the allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 under a concurrent resolution on the budget; (2) accounts identified for advance appropriations, referred to in section 301(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 353 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress; and (3) an estimated unified surplus, referred to in section 211 of such concurrent resolution.

The attached tables, which I submit for printing in the Congressional Record as directed, provide the required information.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, the gentleman from Massachusetts is one of the experts when it comes to the rules of the House, and I commend him for that, but just to be technically correct with regard to his statement, it is not because we failed to do appropriation bills that the 302(b) allocations did not carry forward. It is because the Senate failed to produce a budget that the 302(b) allocation did not carry forward. Had a budget resolution been completed, the 302(b) allocations would have carried forward even though it was a new Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I support the point of order. The gentleman from Massachusetts is correct that certainly appropriation bills could have moved forward. We deemed the budget in order for that process to continue. There are many reasons why appropriation bills did not move forward, but the only fact I wanted to make clear for the Record and for the purpose of precedent setting, if there will be precedent setting this evening, is that in fact it was the failure of a budget to be produced by the Senate and not failure of appropriation bills to be produced that causes this extraordinary procedure to occur this evening. I hope this is not precedent setting because it is very unfortunate that in fact for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act was passed that the other body failed to produce a budget.

Mr. Speaker, I support the point of order.