Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95), with a House amendment thereto, insist on the House amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity just now to look at this motion to instruct conferees, and let me first remind my colleagues that this is a nonbinding symbolic vote. This is not substantive; this is symbolism. It was interesting today that the minority had a big press conference to celebrate Christmas and celebrate the end of the session, and they promised a Christmas present to the American people and that was a big box, and on the box it said the Democrats were going to give the American people a Democratic Congress.

The rest of the story, of course, is that, if you looked inside the box, there was not anything in there. If you opened the box, if you unwrapped it and you looked inside, what you would find is a lot of that little popcorn matter that you get that gets messy all over your house, but no substance whatsoever. Again, today no substance. In fact, interestingly enough, today once again the minority party here in this House brings forward a motion that equates the amount of money you spend in America with your level of compassion; not substance, not results, not is the program working, not are people being helped by the policies that have been put forth. But, if you spend more money, you must care. If you do not spend enough money, or the amount of money we are willing to spend, you must be scrooge at Christmastime.

We had people come here to protest what was happening in this budget bill. And what was their protest? Spend more money. Not get better results, not help more people, not make sure that people who are starving get the food stamps they deserve, but spend more money.

At the holidays we should recognize this probably better than at any other time, that it is not the size of the gift, it is not the fancy paper on the outside of the box, it is not the amount of money you spend that determines your love, your compassion, whether or not you are a true brother and sister to your fellow man; but it is whether or not that gift actually has the results that are intended.

Time and time again we have demonstrated through hearings at the Budget Committee, through hearings at all of the authorizing committees how these programs are just eating up more money, they are spending more money, we are hiring more bureaucrats; but we are using the same old system designed oftentimes back in the 1960s before man even walked on the Moon; and we assume that today in 2005 those programs do not need any reform, do not need any help, do not need any oversight. Just let them keep going. Oh, and spend more money at the same time.

Well, we have an opportunity, and it is an opportunity to reform. It is a plan that we have put out very carefully throughout this year. Today is not the first time we rush to the floor with a piece of paper about what we are going to do. All year long we have been working to try and make sure that food stamps were working better, that the services to the poor and the indigent were effective in getting the results that they truly need.

Instead, what we have today is the opportunity to vote for this symbolic motion to instruct conferees to basically rip out all those savings, to not do anything about reforming those programs but just spend more money. Spend more money.

Let me tell you that, as colleagues, the answer to the most vexing problems in our country today will not be solved by just spending more money. They will be solved when we take responsibility for the job that we have been given to ensure that these programs that people work hard, that people pay taxes to us in order to invent and implement, that they are truly working, that they are helping the people who deserve it the most, and that they ensure that we get results. Not just the rhetoric of reform, but results from reform.

We have the opportunity today to go to conference to work out our differences on a whole host of very important issues. I will tell my colleagues that, if you are worried about this vote, come down and vote for it. Go ahead, vote for it; it is symbolic. If you want to vote for an empty popcorn-filled box of Christmas presents under the tree, go ahead and vote for it. I do not think there is any reason why you cannot.

The real vote will be when the conference meets to talk about reform. The real vote will be when we have an opportunity to talk about truly helping people, not just handing out more money and saying, go ahead, get away from us, do not bother us any more, we have given you more money.

I have seen time and time again how Members of this body have gone home with press releases saying, we have increased the funds for this program. You should not be complaining, we have increased the money to this policy. We have put more money into this bureaucracy. Why are you complaining?

The reason they are complaining is because throwing more money at it does not work.

If you want to measure compassion at this very important time on the calendar by just spending more money, then I have no doubt you will find a way to do that. But if you want to ensure that these programs and these policies are truly helping the people in need, then we need to meet as a conference, we need to put all of those policies on the table to discuss, and we need to reform those policies to ensure that they are truly helping the people intended.

The difference here today is that we have a plan. It does achieve savings, but it delivers a better product for the people intended. The difference on the other side is that they have rhetoric, they have empty promises, and they have the age-old adage of throw more money at it and just hope and pray and assume that it will get fixed. I do not think the American people sent us here to throw more money at it. I think what they have sent us here to do, particularly at this time, is to show compassion, is to get to work, serious work about the reform of these programs so that they truly help the people in need.

Go ahead and vote for this motion to instruct if you feel so moved to throw money at the problem. It is nonbinding; it will not affect the outcome of the conference. We will meet, we will negotiate and discuss these important reforms, and we will bring back to

this body an important package of reforms in a plan that will achieve savings for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2006 and for the 5-year period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through December 5, 2005.

The term ``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. 95. This 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 2006 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates.

The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal years 2006 through 2010. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. 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 compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2006 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation as well as the 302(a) allocation.

The fourth table gives the current level for 2007 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills or amendments thereto 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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 560, I ask call up the bill (H.R. 4241) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, several months ago, we approved the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution. In that budget, the Republicans and Congress laid out our plan, which is based on our fundamental principles to promote economic growth, create jobs, and control government spending. It is part of an overall plan.

Today we stand at what is a critical juncture in implementing that plan and making it a reality. The Deficit Reduction Act starts the process of adopting the real policies and the real reforms that make these massive entitlement programs more effective, more efficient, and less costly.

I expect, as we have already seen, that this is going to be a very vigorous and even sometimes contentious debate. I welcome that. I think we should all welcome that. I think that is what this Chamber is really for. It is what our constituents sent us here to do, to set the priorities, to come up with a solid plan, to do the real work, even if it is difficult, even if it is a challenge, even if you have to fight for it, even if you have to make a debate and a speech and everything else in order to get it done. The point is, we have got to work on this plan and see it through.

This is far from the first day that we have been on the floor or worked in committees in order to get this done. Mr. Speaker, for the past three budget years, we have been working on this plan to get the economy going, to create jobs, to control spending, and to actually reduce the deficit. I would like to review our plan.

First, Republicans committed to reduce the total discretionary spending, making the first actual reduction in the annual spending that happens because we vote on it here in Congress. That is the discretionary spending. It is the first time we have made an actual reduction in this nondiscretionary spending, this discretionary spending part of the budget. The first time we have done that since the 1980s.

Second, the Republicans committed to no tax increases. More importantly, we did not want an automatic tax increase happening. In fact, if Congress does not act this year, if we fail to pass the tax reconciliation, taxes automatically go up, no vote. They just go up.

Third, we decided that we wanted to tackle these important mandatory programs. For the past 3 years, we have stuck to our plan, and we have produced results. Let me just show you this chart. Mr. Speaker, when we started this process, we had a $521 billion deficit that was staring us in the face, caused by what happened on September 11, 2001, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the stock market dot-com bubble bursting, the emergency spending we had to deal with in order to deal with so many broken lives, so many challenges across the country in the wake of the terrorist attack.

Homeland Security spending skyrocketed; and interestingly enough, the same opposition party who comes to the floor tonight decrying spending, decrying deficits voted for most of that spending that got us to the $521 billion worth of deficit. As part of implementing this plan, we reduced that deficit from $521 billion to $427 billion in the first year; $90-some billion in 1 year alone the deficit came down implementing that plan.

Second year, that we just closed the books on, actual reduction from $521 billion to $427 billion to $319 billion. I will suggest to you that $319 billion is not where we want to be. We are heading in the right direction. We are heading in the right direction because we have a plan to grow the economy, to control spending, to create jobs, and create taxpayers. As a result of that, revenues have come in. The strong sustained growth in our economy has driven Federal tax receipts up over 15 percent over last year, even with tax reduction.

Let me repeat that. I understand all the rhetoric on the floor here tonight, but we reduced taxes. The economy expanded. More money came into Washington. That is a fact, incontrovertible fact. No one can come to the floor tonight and tell you any differently. Revenues have increased as a result of strong economic growth.

The Democrats act like this is the government's money that we are talking about here tonight, that all of these, whether it is tax reductions or spending or whatever it is, that this is the government's money. This is not the government's money.

Mr. Speaker, this is the hard-working taxpayers' money. They do the working, they do the sweating, they do the toiling, they are the ones that open small businesses and farms. They are the ones that employ Americans. They are the ones that do not wait for the government to come to bail them out. If they have a tough year, they are the folks who do all the hard work and pay the taxes. It is their money that we are talking about here tonight. That surge of revenue, that surge of money coming from those taxpayers was the largest factor in this dramatic reduction of the deficit, nearly $100 billion this year, $200 billion over the last 2 years.

Even combined, growing the economy and limiting just that 30 percent of our spending is not going to be enough. It is not going to be enough to get where we need to be. The set of challenges still faces us.

We added a third prong to this important deficit reduction. We committed for the first time in nearly a decade to reform and find savings in the largest portion of our Federal spending. That is what we are here to do tonight. It is part of that overall plan.

This spending is what we call mandatory, our automatic pilot-kind of spending. It is over now 50 percent of the entire amount of money that is spent by the Federal Government; and it is without boundaries, it is without reform, and it is pretty much without any kind of review whatsoever. In fact, Congress does not even have to vote on these increases. Let me say that again so you understand. If we do nothing tonight, spending automatically increases, and we have got to go to the taxpayers to get more money. We have got to go to those hard-working Americans to get more money from them in order to run the government.

Automatically, if we do nothing tonight, just like if we do nothing on taxes, they will automatically increase. That is the fantasy that we are dealing with tonight. That is the fantasy of our congressional budget process unfortunately, is things automatically occur if you do not do the hard work of reforming and reducing our spending and our taxes. Compounding the problem is that unchecked spending is growing faster than our economy, faster than inflation, and far beyond our means to sustain it whatsoever. The money is usually just feeding a gigantic bureaucracy. Really, this is a bureaucracy that is failing most of the people it is intended to help.

I asked eight of our very able chairmen and their committees to go to work. I asked them to make some reforms. Over the last 6 months, hundreds of ideas were discussed. Hearings were held. We listened to our constituents, to scholars, to experts, to people who understand the intricacies of these programs. We partnered with the States. We talked to our Governors. All of the committees have met or exceeded the original savings targets with reforms, bringing the total of savings that we will consider here tonight to $50 billion over 5 years.

Really, this is not about saving money. This is an effort to start reforming our largest Federal programs and ensure that they can continue to serve their missions, to serve the people and help the ones who are most in need. Most of these programs desperately need reform. In many cases, they are operating on decades-old models.

Take Medicaid as an example. We are talking about Medicaid tonight as just one of the myriad programs, invented in 1965 before the personal computer, before we walked on the Moon. Yes, it is a program we all support; but, yes, it is a program in need of dramatic reform in order to meet the needs of our changing society and Nation.

Most of these programs desperately need this reform. They are operating

on these models, and we need to make this change. This process that we call reconciliation is just one of the few tools that we have at our disposal in order to make sure that we can go through this process.

I want to give you a sampling of the reforms that are in this package. We expand and build upon the welfare reform that was so successful from 1996. We reformed Medicaid, just as the Governors have asked us to give the States the flexibility in those 50 laboratories to deliver a better-quality service to the people who need them.

We reformed food stamps, a program that helped so many in need, but is in so much need of reform. We enhanced pension security, just at a time when the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has come out telling us we need these reforms, otherwise people's pensions are a desperate concern.

Boosting the low-income heating assistance, at a time we know the winter is going to be challenging and eliminating the excessive student loan overhead costs.

People are going to come here tonight to protect the bureaucracy of these programs. We want to make sure that these programs are helping those in need. These are just a good start. But these reforms and savings are not going to solve the long-term spending problem in a single stroke. But if you listen to the debate, it will sound tonight like we are eliminating half the Federal Government. You will hear debate tonight that will make it sound like we have eliminated these programs.

In fact, what we are talking about here is the total amount of this bill. If you take all of it together, the total savings amounts to less than one-half of 1 percent over the next 5 years. These programs will grow. What we are saying is we just need to slow them down a little bit and instill some reforms so that they can work better. Even though our opponents will claim that these are cuts, spending will continue to grow under each of these programs faster, even, than inflation.

Under our plan, Medicaid is an example. We will continue to grow at 7.5 percent instead of what it is currently growing at, which all of our Governors came to Washington to say was an unsustainable rate at 7.7 percent. That is not a cut. Only in Washington would that be called a cut.

I know my friends on the other side will disagree with our plan to reform our government programs and achieve these savings for American taxpayers. That is fair. We can have that debate tonight. But I ask you, through the Speaker, where is your plan?

You were given an opportunity to present a plan tonight. You will come to the floor tonight and tell us how important these programs are and how they are already failing Americans, but you have not one scintilla of an idea of how to make sure that these programs can continue.

What is your plan to reform these important programs? What are your innovative ideas, or is it simply increase taxes on hard-working Americans? Is it simply more politics as usual? Is it more press releases and attack ads? I have no doubt that is what it is going to be.

I hope Democrats do not plan to come and waste our time tonight, telling us yet again that you do not agree with us. I mean, gee, that is really news. Mr. Speaker, in fact, boy, look at the balcony where all the reporters usually sit. It is really news that you do not support our plan. It is really news that you disagree with the Republicans. It is really news that Republicans and Democrats are fighting. That is not news at all.

What would be news is if you came forward with an alternative. That would be news. If you came with a plan, that would actually be a surprise. It is not going to happen tonight.

You were allowed to present a plan. I am proud to present our plan to reform these very important government programs that achieve savings for hard-working American people who pay the taxes around here. It is part of our successful ongoing effort during one of the most challenging times in our history to promote personal responsibility, to reform government bureaucracy, the same bureaucracy that they will defend tonight is the same bureaucracy that did not get the job done down in the gulf. They decry the bureaucracy on the one hand, and yet they try and protect it on the other.

This eliminates some of the waste, fraud and abuse within our system. And it grows our economy to create jobs and opportunities for the American people. We have a plan to reduce the deficit and to govern America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, where is their plan? Where is your agenda for America, to govern and to reduce your deficit and get us back on path?

I ask that we support the only plan and the best plan and that is the plan we propose tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to respond to just say I have had a chance to check out Matthew in the Bible, and I want to let you know that Matthew was referring to Jesus's speech to people.

Jesus did not say raise a bunch of taxes, create 1,000-page tax code, hire millions of government workers, build hundreds of big white fancy buildings, stick them in there, create a system, pass a bunch of mandates, a bunch of regulations, all sorts of paperwork, measure your compassion by increases only in order to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He said you do it as an individual.

So do not measure compassion by government. Measure it by what you are willing to do for the least of your brothers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is all politics.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

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

Mr. Speaker, these are the same arguments we heard before we reformed welfare and unlocked 30 million Americans from the dependency of government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), one of the eight very distinguished committee Chairs who worked on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Education and the Workforce Committee has contributed to this effort, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) from the Resources Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the very distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and ask unanimous consent to allow him to control the time for the purposes of yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to find where we are taking away picnics now. I am looking for picnics in here. I may not vote for this now. I did not realize we were taking away picnics, of all things. My goodness. How could we do that, my friend.

I would now like to yield to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee has contributed reform to this package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. Speaker, except the gentleman forgot Osama bin Laden, and I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee, so maybe he can answer some of the diatribe that we heard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a very distinguished gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Democrats come to the floor and they want us to only remember two parts of a very large story. They want us to remember back in May now of 2001. It is kind of an interesting date they picked out of the air, May of 2001. What a wonderful time. Can we all remember back to that time of innocence? Can we all remember back to that time? They want us to remember a time of surpluses. Everything was perfect. They make it sound like such a blissful time.

What they do not want to remind you is that we were suffering at that very moment from a Clinton recession, a Clinton recession where the stock market bubble burst, the dot-coms were failing. We had corporate scandal, and the stock market was plummeting.

We saw some real challenges. We stepped into that breach. We made a very important economic decision that people spending their own money, investing their own money, making decisions in the towns and cities and suburbs and counties of our great land is the best way to grow our economy. It worked and we did create jobs, and we did provide prosperity, and we do know how to do it again.

But then they jump ahead. They do not want you to remember any more of 2001, not 2002, not 2003, 2004. All the way to 2005 is where their story goes next, and it is deficits as far as the eye can see. They do not want you to remember about what happened on September 11. They do not want you to remember the fact that we are now in the middle of prosecuting a global war on terror with our men and women in the field that now they want to recklessly call home and not even want to fund.

What they do not want to recall is the fact that we had reforms that we needed to put into our homeland security to protect our country. They do not want us to recall any of the emergency spending for New York or for the Pentagon. They do not want you to remember the needs that we had when natural disaster struck our country and where, in minutes, the Congress was willing to come back and spend whatever it took to make sure our people were taken care of.

They do not want you to remember any of that. They voted for it. They voted for a lot of that spending, but they do not want you to remember that. They just want you to think that Clinton caused surpluses and now we are in deficits; do not think of anything else in between.

Well, you know, there is a lot in between. It may be a good political plan what they are putting on the floor today. It may be great in a press release. It may be good in a 12-step press release by a Blue Dog budget. It may be great if you are going to go home and run attack ads. It may be great if you are just getting ready for the next election.

But if you want to govern, you need a plan. If you want to govern, you have got to put it on the table. If you want to govern, you have to be serious about the activities and not just come to the floor and be negative. If you want to govern, you need to put it out so that we can decide whether it is the right way to go or not.

Well, we have a plan. It reforms government. It grows the economy, it protects America, and it gets us moving again in a positive way that trusts Americans to make the correct decisions about their future and not trust government to do it for them.

People, individuals and families, make much better decisions about their daily lives than the government can for you. When Democrats come to the floor, their plan will be tax increases and trusting bigger government, bigger bureaucracy, more big, fancy, white buildings filled with bureaucrats to provide the compassion that they do not believe the American people will have for themselves. They have got to manufacture it through government and government bureaucracy; and that is the reason that we are here tonight, because that has not worked. Our government bureaucracy has let down the American people.

We have got to reform those programs so they deliver a quality product, and we have to do it tonight, and we are the only ones to do it. There is no point in talking to the Democrats. They are all in lock-step going to vote ``no.'' They have decided tonight they are going to wait for the election for the American people. They are not going to do anything in the meantime except be negative.

So we have got to do it. We have got to put the plan out. We have got to support it. We have got to provide the reforms, and we have to provide the savings so that we can reduce the deficit and get back to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, but still no plan.

But to close on our plan, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming corrections to the text of H.R. 4241, as passed by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak out of order for a moment just to thank the staff of the Budget Committee, Jim Bates, a very able staff that put together the bill. I also would like to thank so many of the leadership staff that do such good work around here and the committee staff that put all of this together. They did an excellent job and they deserve a lot of credit for that work.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 560, I call up the Senate bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95), and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 560, I offer a motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2005 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act. This status report is current through September 2, 2005.

The term ``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. 95, the conference report on the budget resolution. This 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 2005 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates.

The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal years 2005 through 2009. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. 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 compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 with the total of ``section 302(b)'' suballocations among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures reported by the Appropriations Committee that would breach its section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority.

Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2006 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through September 2, 2005.

The term ``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. 95. This 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 2006 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates.

The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal years 2006 through 2010. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. 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 compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2006 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation as well as the 302(a) allocation.

The fourth table gives the current level for 2007 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills or amendments thereto 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.

Mr. Speaker, the rule we are considering today commits a small but significant act of principle over convenience: In addition to providing for the consideration of the Foreign Relations bill, it firmly establishes the precedent that this House will not consider legislation on the floor if it exceeds the levels established by the budget resolution. This choice will not make us heroes; it will not win us accolades in The Washington Post. But it does show that we will stick to our budget disciplines, and I rise to commend Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee for this very important decision.

By way of explanation: As originally reported by the Committee on International Affairs, the bill increases mandatory spending by $103 million over 5 years. Specifically, the bill as reported would allow the State Department to automatically spend leftover funds on other purposes without further legislative action. Traditionally these transfers are subject to appropriations. But the reported bill eliminated that requirement. As a result, the bill converted discretionary spending to mandatory at a time when we are trying to restrain mandatory spending.

This increase in mandatory spending breaches the spending limit, or ``allocation,'' established for the IR Committee in the budget resolution. In technical terms, this violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which precludes the House from considering a bill that exceeds the 302(a) allocation of the committee that reported the bill.

Now, the Rules Committee could have let this slide: The rule could simply have waived the Budget Act restriction, and let the authorizing committee fix the problem through a floor amendment. After all, many will say it wasn't really a large amount of money to worry about--and hardly anyone would have noticed anyway.

While that step might have fixed the problem with this particular bill, it would have done it the wrong way. The principle underlying the congressional budget process is that we should not consider bills on this floor until they comply with spending limits established in the budget resolution. In other words, the burden is on the committee reporting the bill to comply with the budget before the measure reaches the floor. If compliance were left to a floor amendment or a subsequent point of order, it would cost budgetary commitment to the winds of the moment--which is no commitment at all. Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee have shown the appropriate kind of leadership: They have upheld this important principle of fiscal discipline.

Once again, I commend Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee for enforcing the budget resolution and upholding the integrity of the budget process. We may not win any medals for this; we won't get to brag about it to Chris Matthews on Hardball. But this is the right thing to do, and that should be all the reason we need. This is an excellent rule and merits all of our support.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any provision of this resolution,

amendment numbered 38 in House Report 109-175 shall not be in

order.

Sec. 3. That immediately upon disposition of H.R. 2601 the

Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the Committee

of the Whole House on the state of the Union for

consideration of a bill proposing to add a new section 1111

as contemplated in amendment numbered 38 in House Report 109-

175. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

All points of order against consideration of the bill are

waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

International Relations. After general debate the bill shall

be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The

bill shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such further

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 4. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2005 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act. This status report is current through July 8, 2005.

The term ``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. 95, the conference report on the budget resolution. This 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 2005 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates.

The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal years 2005 through 2009. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. 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 compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 with the total of ``section 302(b)'' suballocations among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures reported by the Appropriations Committee that would breach its section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority.

Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2006 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through July 8, 2005.

The term ``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. 95. This 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 2006 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates.

The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal years 2006 through 2010. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. 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 compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2006 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation as well as the 302(a) allocation.

The fourth table gives the current level for 2007 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills or amendments thereto 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.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, it is necessary to offset the cost of the Transitional Medical Assistance extension, TMA. It is my understanding that the gentleman from California has agreed to extend TMA for an additional 3 months as part of this welfare extension bill. It is my further understanding that the gentleman has agreed to include this provision, with the understanding that the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the TMA program, will bear the cost of this and any subsequent extensions.

I yield to the gentleman from California to determine whether or not that is his understanding.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to continue this important program as he has in the past.

I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to further clarify how this TMA extension and future TMA extensions will be handled by the House.

Is it the gentleman's understanding that the TMA extension and future TMA extensions will be paid for with offsets under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that are in excess of the savings required under the budget resolution?

I yield to the distinguished chairman to find out if that is his understanding.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank both of these distinguished chairmen for their cooperation. I would commit, on behalf of the House Committee on the Budget, that when this bill and subsequent extensions of TMA are offset as part of the reconciliation or other legislation, the Committee on Ways and Means will be held harmless for the cost of this and any future extensions of

Mr. Chairman, not since 1988--more than a decade and a half ago--has the Appropriations Committee passed all its bills out of the House before the Fourth of July. This year the committee stands poised to do so--even though its subcommittees have been restructured, and it is the first year at the helm for the Committee's new Chairman, the gentleman from San Bernardino County. I applaud the Committee and the Chairman for the deliberate pace they have maintained.

The appropriations measure before us today provides funding for Transportation, Treasury, and Housing, as well as the Federal Judiciary and the District of Columbia. Under the reorganized subcommittee structure, this bill represents the first time Housing is matched with Transportation and Treasury in the same appropriations bill. I am pleased to report the bill is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House Concurrent Resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, which Congress adopted as its fiscal blueprint on April 28th.

the budget resolution

H.R. 3058 provides $115.2 billion in discretionary budgetary resources. This is a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2005. Even so, the bill is consistent with the allocation to the subcommittee, and therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays. The bill does not contain any emergency spending.

To meet their 302(b) limit, the bill rescinds $549 in mandatory contract authority previously provided to the FAA. The bill also rescinds $2.497 billion of previously enacted discretionary budget authority, all but $4 million of the discretionary rescissions come from the Public and Indian Housing certificate fund.

The bill also complies with the provisions in the budget resolution concerning advance appropriations. The bill includes $4.273 billion in such appropriations, all of them in accounts the budget resolution lists as eligible for advances. The House should be aware, however, these provisions--along with the $18.885 billion in advances already passed in the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill--reach the ceiling of $23.158 billion in total advance appropriations provided for in the budget resolution. Any further increase in advance appropriations would breach this limit and subject such legislation to a point of order.

programmatic provisions

The Department of Transportation is funded at $61.959 billion, $4,457 above the request. This includes $36.3 billion for Federal Aid-Highways and $14.4 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration. Treasury is funded at $11.6 billion, $358 million above 2005. Most of these funds-- $10.5 billion--go to the IRS. The Federal Judiciary is funded at $5.4 billion, which represents a $326 million (6 percent) increase over 2005. The District of Columbia Federal payments are $603 million, $48 million above 2005 and $30 million above the President's request.

The bill addresses our critical housing needs by funding the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] at $33.5 billion, $544 million above the 2005 level. The bill does not reflect the administration's proposal to move Community Development Block Grants [CDBGs] to the Commerce Department, instead keeping the program at HUD. Also, funding for Section 8 programs is split into two accounts to provide for better accountability and oversight.

conclusion

Again, I commend the Chairman for balancing difficult priorities and delivering a bill within our agreed upon budget constraints. I express my support for H.R. 3058.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, which funds programs and activities carried out by the Departments of State, Treasury and Agriculture, the United States Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Export-Import Bank, among others.

This measure is the tenth appropriations bill to be considered under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, and provides for the foreign operations and export financing needs of our nation, clearly national priorities in a time of war.

I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established by the conference report to H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

H.R. 3057 provides $20.3 billion in appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs for fiscal year 2006. The bill provides $571 million in funding above fiscal year 2005, but it is $2.6 billion below the President's request.

The bill provides $1.25 billion less then requested for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, $478 million less in Economic Support Funds and $146 million less in Foreign Military Financing funding. In addition, the bill recommends no funding for Iraq--a reduction of $459 million--as over $5 billion in funds previously appropriated for Iraq relief and reconstruction remain unobligated and could be used to fund the requirements presented in the fiscal year 2006 request. H.R. 3057 also provides no funding for the World Bank's Global Environment Facility until it adopts a performance-based allocation system--a reduction of $107 million from fiscal year 2005.

H.R. 3057 provides a record level of $2.7 billion in funding to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria: $131 million more than requested by the President land $502 million, or 23 percent, more than provided in fiscal year 2005. Of this total, $2.3 billion is provided specifically for HIV/AIDS programs. The bill also fully funds the President's request of $2.5 billion in assistance for Israel, $1.8 billion in assistance for Egypt, $1 billion in assistance to support reconstruction and democratization activities in Afghanistan. In addition, $437 million in funding is provided for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement, an increase of $111 million, or 34 percent, over fiscal year 2005.

H.R. 3057 does not contain any emergency-designated budget authority or advance appropriations, but it does include a rescission of $64 million in previously enacted discretionary budget authority.

With total fiscal year 2006 appropriations equal to its allocation, the bill conforms with the budget resolution. Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution.

In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 3057.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the sesquicentennial celebration of Clinton, Iowa--a community I am very proud to represent in Congress.

One hundred and fifty summers ago, the Iowa Land Company purchased the site of the town and named it in honor of DeWitt Clinton, a former New York governor.

A number of energetic entrepreneurs worked hard to help fuel Clinton's early growth. They rooted the city along the banks of the beautiful Mississippi River; and when a railroad bridge crossing the river was completed a few years after the town was established, the lumber industry boomed.

Logs were floated down the river from Minnesota and Wisconsin to Clinton's sawmills and distributed along the river to other flourishing communities. Clinton was known as the sawmill capital of the country from the late 1850s to around 1900.

The huge log flotillas on the river of Clinton's early days must have been an impressive sight. If you visit Clinton's Eagle Point Park today in the same area, you might see families enjoying a picnic or barges carrying Iowa's bounty down the mighty Mississippi.

Today, Clinton remains full of industrious people determined to make the most of their community's strengths. Clinton's leaders are looking forward to creating even more opportunities for local workers. And every time I meet with a group of Clinton residents, I am always impressed with their incredible enthusiasm and pride in their community.

In another 150 years from now, I am sure Clinton will still be home to the same brand of wonderful people, living in a vibrant, active city by the river.

Happy birthday, Clinton!