Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I was listening and I heard the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin suggest that his cuts to defense were slowing down the rate of growth for defense. It is kind of an interesting argument. I hope that the Members on his side listened to that argument because we are doing the same thing. We are slowing down the rate of growth. All of the mandatory programs will receive increases. All of those automatic spending programs will receive increases. All we are asking for is reform in slowing down the rate of growth. I have enormous respect for the gentleman when it comes to his advocacy for finding savings in defense. We should look for savings in defense. We should look for reforms. I do not think we should do that necessarily today during a war; but when you argue to slow the rate of growth, I think it is a valuable argument. I hope that we hear that more often now. When we hear about these drastic, dramatic cuts to the mandatory programs in the future, I hope they will listen to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous consent request that has been worked out between both sides. I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H. Con. Res. 95 in the Committee of the Whole, a final period of general debate shall be in order at the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for

amendment, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished majority whip.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are coming to the end of the debate on the final amendment in the way of a substitute. I want to congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the Democrats for coming forward with a substitute. It is never an easy thing to write a budget, as we all know. But I appreciate the fact that so many of our colleagues came forward with a budget.

The prime argument that is being made here today is, first of all, that the Republicans seem to have caused the deficit, number one, and, number two, that the only way to get out of the deficit is to listen to the Democrats and increase taxes and increase spending.

So let me just take those because that is basically what the argument is. First of all, with regard to the deficit. Now, maybe my memory is just fading but I am trying to remember back to before the world changed on September 10 of 2001, and we were running a surplus. We had more money in the Treasury, in the Federal Treasury than we were paying out, but we also discovered something that next morning.

On September 11 of 2001 we discovered that we were running some deficits that we did not know about because the balance sheet did not give us much perspective on it. We were running a deficit in homeland security. We were not protecting the country. We were running a deficit in national defense. We were not able to project our strength around the world and protect freedom. We had a deep recession that we needed to climb out of that got a gut punch that morning and it lasted for quite a while longer.

So we made some very deliberate decisions that next day and days after. In a bipartisan way we said, it is time to reduce taxes, stimulate the economy. It is time to protect the country, do whatever it takes. It is time to fund our national defense. It is time to protect our borders. It is time to do all of these things and let us not ask the question today how we are going to pay for it. Let us do it. And we did it. And you voted for every one of those bills, every single one.

Do not shake your head. I will show you the votes. You voted for every single one of those bills to protect the

country. You protected the country with every single one of your votes.

So instead of coming down here today and blaming the Republicans for partisan purposes, why do you not remember the history you know, that it is Osama bin Laden that had as much to do with this deficit as anybody in this country. And instead of trying to get political points, you ought to just relax and try and figure out a way to get out of it.

So this is how we decided to get out of it. We said, let us control spending. Let us stimulate the economy. And look at what has happened as a result of that. Not only did the tax cuts not get us into that deficit, but because of the work that we have done, we are climbing out of it, because we are protecting the country, because we are stimulating the economy and are creating jobs. Because of all of that we have the opportunity in this budget to reduce the deficit and build on the progress we had from last year.

Last year we cut the deficit 20 percent, 20 percent in one year with a growing economy and controlling spending. And so we are starting on a glidepath, reducing that deficit every year. The deficit was not caused overnight. It is going to take some time to get it down and we have a plan to accomplish that.

Now, I also want to put this deficit in some perspective. You have got to compare the deficit to something. You cannot just say $500 billion is a lot of money or $200 billion is a lot of money. Of course it is a lot of money. But compared to what is it a lot of money? Compared to our economy is the measure that every single economist says you have got to compare it to.

And as you look at the deficit as it is compared to our economy, you can see here that this year we are at 3.6 percent of our economy. If we stick to this belt tightening that is responsible over time, we will be able to get down to 1 percent of the economy.

And why is that important? Well, first of all let me show you deficits in the past. This is not even the biggest deficit we have ever run. This is not the biggest deficit. Look back in 1946 after World War II, we were running a deficit that was 7 percent of our economy. Let us look to the year I first came to Congress. It was 3.9 percent of the economy back in 1990 when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I came to Congress. Let us look back to the early eighties when we complained. It was 5 percent.

We are talking about an economy that is chugging along and growing. We are talking about a deficit plan that gets us below the rate of growth that we need to get to in order to have a responsible budget, and we need to pass this plan and get on with business. We do not need tax increases and we do not need more spending.

Vote down the Spratt substitute.

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

If I might take just a brief moment in introducing my first speaker, I would like to just say on behalf of our side in particular but I think on behalf of the entire Congress, we always respect Members who go on to bigger and better things and today the President made a wise announcement in nominating the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) to become our U.S. Trade Representative.

The applause meter made it look pretty good for confirmation there, I say to my very good friend, and he is my friend. He has been the vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and he has been a great wing man and personal friend to so many.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, for those of you who have read the prophet Micah, I know that he was not speaking to the Congressional Budget Office. He was speaking to the human heart, and that is the biggest difference between the policies that we have before us today. We believe that the individual should be free and should be allowed to determine their destiny. We do not believe that government should make decisions that people can make better for themselves. We do not believe that money equals compassion. We do not believe that money often equals success. Money is not getting us results. And all that is offered on the other side is more money, more spending, higher taxes, more government, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more laws, more politicians making decisions that individuals and families and communities should be making for themselves in the freest nation on the face of the Earth. And that is why our budget calls for strengthening our country, growing our economy, giving power to individuals, and recognizing that if we do not control the size of government, government will take our freedom, and it will not succeed the way we want to be able to allow people to succeed.

My friends, government is growing out of control. What we are asking for in this budget is something that we should do every day in Washington, and that is look at the results of the programs that we have put in place. Government, we believe, should be there to help people who cannot help themselves. And oftentimes, we have invented more government to try and take the place of families, take the place of neighbors, take the place of communities in order to solve problems. And too often we are not getting the results for all the extra money that we are spending. And too often, in this well of the House, we debate between percentages and dollar increases as if, if I spend $6 and you spend $7 you must care $1 more. And that is not the way our debate should evolve. Our debate should be based on results. We need a results revolution in government. We need to look at the results we are getting from the programs we have put in place. If they are not working, we should reform them, and that is what this budget calls for. It says we are going to slow the rate of growth. It gives instructions to the committees to go through the budget of the Federal Government and look for ways to ensure that programs deliver the results that we require in order to help people who are truly in need and, at the same time, make sure we are defending the country, growing the economy and controlling spending.

Just like last year, the House will lead. We led last year. We led when we got to a balanced budget in the late 1990s, and we will lead again today by passing what I believe is the strongest budget, the best blueprint, to get out of deficits, to make sure that we get results from the programs and the dollars that we are spending and make sure we get back on a path to freedom in this country.

I urge adoption of this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, today we are here to debate the budget resolution for 2006, the Federal Government spending blueprint that will guide all of this Congress' spending and revenue decisions for the coming fiscal year.

Let me start by thanking my staff on both sides, Republicans and Democrats. What Members will hear today, this is probably one of the heartiest debates of the year when we talk about the priorities for the coming year. As Members might imagine, because we come from different backgrounds and different States and different philosophies, we have different ideas of what is important, Members will hear quite a bit of debate from time to time that will sound rancorous. It will sound like we do not agree on anything and everything is going to be difficult, and I do not think it is quite that bad.

We have some pretty important priorities that we all agree upon, and we share a number of the goals. How to achieve those goals is in part the budget process: how are we going to get it done, and how are we going to accomplish it. That, unfortunately, gets into the details where we may disagree.

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my partner and friend who will come forthwith his own budget today, and we appreciate that. Members will hear his ideas and our ideas. We will get to debate those ideas, and we will come out at the other end with a better understanding of exactly how both sides will approach the problem, the challenges we will have; and we will hear about some of the ways to solve this.

Long before today, long before this debate started and quite honestly before we received the President's budget, we knew what the priorities were going to have to be. If you attend any town meeting in Iowa or across the country, Members are going to hear these same kinds of themes: we have to keep the country strong and defended. If we are not strong, we are not free; and if we are not free, we have lost everything. We have lost the most important gift we have been given, that has been bestowed on us, and that we feel so passionate about being able to bestow on generations to come here in this country and around the world. We need to continue to be strong.

Second, we need to continue to grow the economy. We really do. We need to create jobs and keep the opportunities flowing for our kids and grandkids because we know when we are strong and growing, we are able to accomplish so much in the world. Our economy must continue to grow.

Last but not least, and I can tell Members this is true wherever you go, people around the country are frustrated by the attitude and almost arrogance that government can solve all of our problems, that somehow another government program will solve the problem, or more government bureaucracy or more government regulations or just another law or more employees working in fancy white buildings downtown, if we would only do that we would solve the problem, and that means spend much more money, too much money.

So America's continued greatness comes from, I believe, the unlimited opportunities that our freedom provides, but we have to get our hands around this out-of-control, unsustainable spending. Right along with our well-meaning folks who come along, we have created a government that is too big and spends too much, and we have to get control of that spending if we are going to be successful.

As I have said, these must be our Nation's highest priorities, continued strength, continued growth, and making sure we can restrain spending because none of the rest of it, all of the good things that the Federal Government does in so many areas such as education and health care and veterans benefits and agriculture and transportation and energy and science, I could go on and on, we all have our favorite areas where we think the government ought to invest, but none of that continues to happen, none of that will be achieved if we are not strong, if our economy does not grow, and if we cannot get our arms around the spending.

So we chose to write a budget that ensures that first and foremost our needs must be met, gives all other priorities a fair shake, that is what the

budget process does, it puts in a $50 billion what we call a place holder, recognizing that we need to fund next year's likely emergency request for the war on terror, we have to plan for that; and it continues the progress that we have made in reducing the deficit and getting our spending on a sustainable path.

Last year was really the first year that we have been able to move beyond the crisis mode that we have had in our budget in response to September 11, 2001. We began a path to get hold of our out-of-control spending and to reduce the deficit. We had, I think, some pretty good success. We ought to recognize that we made some progress last year and realize how it happened. Despite cries from many different quarters in the country that all we need to do is just raise some taxes, tax the wealthy is always what people say, tax all those small businesses that are creating jobs, tax those farmers, tax those families that are sending their kids to college and are trying to make ends meet around their kitchen table, just give them more taxes and we will solve the problem. We decided we were not going to raise taxes. As a result of that, the economy continued to expand, and, due in large part to those economic policies, we now have strong, sustained economic growth and job creation. We also, for the first time in a long time, managed to slow the rate of this nonsecurity spending that has been out there, for the first time below the rate of inflation. I think that is a whole lot more reasonable than what we saw in years past.

Let me just show my colleagues what we did last year. This is what happened in just one year. The President when he came in, almost a year ago right now, the budget deficit was going to look like this, $521 billion. We all said that was not what we wanted, that we did not want to do that. We wanted to see if we could get our arms around it last year. We knew it was going to be tough. We knew there were going to be all sorts of complaining, claims that we were not keeping the priorities straight, but when the President started, this is where we started, at $521 billion. In one year alone, 20 percent, $109 billion was reduced on that deficit. $109 billion or 20 percent in one year.

Why? Two reasons. Number one, the economy grew. The economy grew faster than anybody expected, because when you unleash this 10-plus- trillion-dollar economy and allow it to just chug along and create jobs and have people investing and creating those opportunities for our young people around the country and others to make money for themselves and deal with their own problems and their own challenges, our economy is a wonderful thing and when it has just a little bit more growth than we expect, that brings in a lot of revenue to our Treasury. In one year, we reduced the deficit 20 percent. In that same year, even with tax reductions, more money came into the Treasury than the year before. This is not a science experiment. It is a fact. When you reduce taxes and you cause economic growth, oftentimes, and last year was an example of this and already we are seeing it this year, more money comes into the Treasury. That combined with holding the rate of growth of spending, we were able to reduce that deficit and get back eventually to balance. We took the first steps by keeping the economy growing, creating jobs, beginning to restrain this out-of-control spending.

But while both of these items are critical alone, they are not going to get the job done. We have so many Members who understand that every year we come down to the floor on appropriation bills and we battle over a million here and a million there, and I know it all adds up, but there is a part of the budget that is not being addressed. I will get to that in just a moment.

This year in the budget, much like the President's budget, we take the necessary next step for slowing spending, at the same time ensuring that our priorities are met. This includes reducing the top line number for all the nonhomeland, nondefense spending by eight-tenths of 1 percent. What we are doing is we are saying we are going to take the President's number for defense and for homeland security, we want to keep the country strong, but in all other areas of our discretionary spending, we are going to start weeding the garden. We want to look through all of those programs and find ways to save money, find ways for us to reform programs, find places where we are wasting money, where money is not being spent appropriately, and as a result of that be able to reduce some of those increases.

Additionally, and probably more important, this budget begins to address the unsustainable growth on the other side of the budget, the 55 percent of the spending that simply operates automatically. This is the dirty secret of budgeting that most Members do not want to talk about and that is what we call mandatory spending. What is mandatory? What could possibly be mandatory about spending in Washington? When Congress sets up a law that says a check is going to be written if certain eligibility is met and regardless of any other changes in demographics or anything else, money just keeps going out, the program keeps chugging along, without any checks, without any balances, without any opportunities to take a look at whether the program is meeting the needs. That is automatic spending. That is the mandatory spending.

What we did a number of years ago in welfare reform is we said the program is not helping people, it is not helping families, it is locking people into the dependency on government, asking no personal responsibility in return. Unless we reform the program, we are not going to get our spending under control. People are just going to keep getting the checks and nothing is going to ever change. Generation upon generation was going to be locked in this spending. And so what we did just 10 years ago and what we want to do again here is tackle some of that automatic spending.

Let me show you what is happening to it. The yellow area here is the portion of the budget that back in 1995 when we tackled welfare reform was about half of the budget, this entitlement spending or automatic spending. We tackled it back then. Thank goodness we did because it was growing out of control in the welfare programs. We now need to look in other areas because look what has happened in just 10 years. In just 10 years, more than half of the budget is now done automatically, is not going to be done on the floor here, in our appropriations process, is not going to have the oversight, is not going to have the opportunity to reform because we are not paying attention to it in our budget. This year we are. This year we are going to. This year we are going to ask the committees to reform the programs and begin weeding the garden, looking for ways to deliver these programs more efficiently.

Why? Because as we see, if we do nothing, it grows unsustainably out of control, which is the word the Governors use for Medicaid, unsustainable. The Medicaid program is unsustainable. They know it is growing too fast. They know that on an average year, Medicaid grows 7.5 percent. Out of control. 7.5 percent. And so this year what we are going to do is we are going to begin to tackle this automatic spending. Our current rate of growth of spending in this mandatory area is 6.4 percent. All of it is growing at 6.4 percent. Nothing changes. 6.4 percent. Again, every year, another 6 percent, every year growing and compounding and growing and Congress is doing nothing. Our constituents are getting frustrated. And so what we need to do is we need to go in and reduce that growth just one-tenth of 1 percent. That is all we are asking for. We are saying instead of growing at 6.4 percent, it is going to keep growing at 6.3 percent. But let us get the committees and let us get the Congress and let us get the Governors into a room and let us begin talking about these programs, reforming them and getting them under control.

I will note that there is a very interesting phenomenon about this decision to slow the rate of growth which ends up being about one-tenth of 1 percent over the next 5 years. It has created a very interesting phenomenon, because what happens about this time of year is people come to the floor and they start saying things like, oh, these cuts are outrageous, these cuts are unconscionable. Why do they keep calling it cuts? Because in Washington, a cut is a decrease in an anticipated increase.

Let me explain what I am saying here. What I am saying here is that in Washington, if you do not get what you expected from one year to the next, if you do not get the increase you thought you were going to get, they run to the floor, they run to the press conferences, they run to wherever it is they can run and complain and suggest that they are being cut. It would be as if your son came to you and you have been negotiating your lawn mowing fee, his allowance maybe over the last number of years and you were able to pay him 10 bucks every time he mowed the lawn. This year he came to you and he said, ``Dad, I want 15.'' You said, ``Son, I love you. You're a great son. You do a great job. I'd like you to trim a little bit more, but you're doing a pretty good job with the lawn. I'm not going to give you 15, I'm going to give you 12.'' If he ran to the microphones with a lot of people around here, they would claim he was cut $3. My goodness, what an outrage. You should love your son. You should love what he does to your lawn, that he should get an increase to $15. My goodness, what an outrage, instead of recognizing that it was a $2 increase. That happens so often around here.

I understand that we are going to hear some of that rhetoric today, but we are slowing the rate of growth. We are just saying it needs to be slowed down. Just slow it down. Let us reform the programs. Let us get the people in a room who need to be part of the discussion to reform these programs and let us slow down the spending and make sure that the programs that we are talking about, which are so vitally important to people, take the food stamp program. That is for people who are hungry. Take the Medicaid program. That is for people who do not have health care. Take a number of these programs and suggest that they should grow out of control? Or suggest they should meet the changing needs of a population, and that is something that we have to continue to do and it requires constant weeding of the garden and constant attention if we are going to get that done.

The problems facing our mandatory spending did not happen overnight. We are not going to fix this overnight. We are not suggesting this is being fixed overnight. It is like going from 60 miles an hour to slam on the brakes to zero? No. That is not what we are doing. We are just saying, slow down, figure out a way to make these reforms.

One thing I will guarantee you is that if there is no budget, if you do not put these kinds of instructions into the budget, if there is no budget or if an entity or a Member comes to the floor with a budget today that does not have these serious kinds of instructions in the budget to reform the programs, I will guarantee you they will not get fixed. I would suggest to you doing nothing is not an option. You cannot complain about Medicaid and offer no solution. You cannot complain about the error rate in food stamps and say there is no solution. You cannot complain about these programs and say there is no solution. We do not think there is a silver bullet but we want to set up a process to begin the discussion to fix these programs. We can do this. It is going to take time. The budget recognizes that, the budget we brought to the floor today, that we need a reasonable pace to get there. We set September as a deadline so we can invite all of the interested parties in to begin this. It builds on the critical work that we have done over the past number of years to shore up and strengthen national defense and create jobs and make sure that we continue our reduction in spending. I believe it is a doable, a fair and honest budget, one that we can work with the President in order to make sure it gets put into place.

I want to end with this. We plan to enforce this budget. This is a good budget. Just like last year, we plan to enforce this budget. Whether this is by way of announcement or however you want to do it, do not worry if we do not get an agreement with the Senate, with the other body. I understand that the other body has decided to walk away from the President on the budget. They are not going to do real reform. It does not look like they are going to try and control spending. I am very frustrated with what I see over from the other body. They are watering it down every step of the way. The courage unfortunately does not appear to be there in order to make some of these big changes that I think our Nation demands at this time. But I will tell you that in the House, just like last year, we enforced the budget. There was a controversy for those Congress watchers that have been brewing on the floor this week about people who wanted to really enforce the budget. Thank goodness we do that. Last year we enforced the budget. The Speaker did. I did. We were able to hold the line on spending, keep within that budget. As a result, we got the deficit reduction that we needed. Just like last year, we will do that again this year. I do not need any special rules. I do not need any Member to tell me that that is how we ought to do it. That is my commitment. That is the Speaker's commitment. That is the majority's commitment. When we pass something, we mean it. That is what we lived under last year.

We have had terrible extra budgetary spending in an emergency basis. I understand people are frustrated with all the extra spending. I want to show it to you. Every year we have had to do extra spending. I understand that. On September 10, 2001, we had a surplus.

There is no question, we had a surplus on September 10 of 2001. We all know what happened the next day. And we all know and we all joined in the spending to meet the needs of our changed world. None of that was in the budget. We knew we had to do it. We knew we had to keep the economy strong. We knew we had to support our troops. We knew we had to combat terrorism. We knew we had to protect the country.

We decided we would do whatever it took. That is whatever it took. And it meant we had to run deficits. But just like last year, we made a commitment to reducing the deficit. We did it 20 percent last year. We are going to do it again this year. We will get to cutting the deficit in half by 2009. We will get that accomplished and then some, and we will get back to balance. But we have got to stick to a plan.

We will do whatever it takes, not only to protect the country, but we will do whatever it takes not to pass on that legacy to the next generation. We cannot do it all in 1 day. We cannot do it all in 1 year.

We made progress last year. This budget builds on that progress, meets the needs of our country, and it is a good budget that I hope my colleagues adopt.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to have our Members talk a little bit about our continued strength as a Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of our committee, to talk about national defense.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) to talk about homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I say they have demanded and we are responding; but I do not hear any of them saying we want a tax increase like the Blue Dog budget is going to offer. That is not what they are saying.

We do not need more taxes to come into Washington from this oversized government. We do not need that from the Democratic substitute. We do not need it from the Blue Dog budget. We do not need a tax increase. There is not anybody balancing their checkbook around their kitchen table in Iowa saying, gee, Mom and Dad, let us figure out a way to pay more in taxes.

They want us to control spending. So we will talk about controlled spending.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) to talk about the discretionary part of the budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) to talk about automatic spending or mandatory spending. We do not need a tax increase. We need to control spending.

Mr. Chairman, we do not need a Democratic tax increase. We need to keep the economy growing.

Mr. Chairman, to speak about that issue, I yield 10 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration in the Committee of the Whole of H. Con. Res. 95 pursuant to House Resolution 154, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), or his designee, be permitted to offer amendment numbered 2 in House Report 109-19 out of the specified order.

Mr. Chairman, to talk about the importance of our communities and our cities, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chairman of that coalition, to talk about the same subject, the importance of our communities and the Community Development Block Grant.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Just to punctuate what the gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from Connecticut said, we believe in local control; and we want to be partners with these communities in solving problems. We disagreed with the President in his budget with the changes that were made to the Community Development Block Grant; so we made that value judgment and change in this budget. We are supporting our mayors. We are supporting our communities. We want to be good partners, and we believe in local control in solving those problems. The big Federal Government cannot solve all these problems that these local folks are dealing with. We want to give them the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a veteran and the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman of the House who has probably some of the heaviest lifting to do with regard to controlling spending, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

First let me compliment my friend from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a new member of the committee. I appreciate his service. We have worked together on a number of issues. But let me give a slightly different tack from what he was suggesting with regard to our record on education because I think it is important for us to see what has come before.

First, with regard to education totals, as you can see, we have grown on an average of 9 percent a year for the last 5 years. There are not many programs around Washington that have grown that fast. Homeland security is the only other department that has grown at that rate. Nine percent. This is the total we have spent for education.

Again, is it enough? You might say no. Could we always spend more? Of course. But I want to put it in perspective. Nine percent annual growth over the last 5 years.

Title I, the main program that affects No Child Left Behind, has grown 10 percent per year since 2000 and was funded at $12 billion for fiscal year 2005. That annual growth, again, every year has gone up. Pell grants has grown 10 percent per year since 2000 and $12.4 billion in this fiscal year. No Child Left Behind has grown at 40 percent under President Bush. I understand there will always be this debate that programs are authorized at one level and then they are appropriated at yet another level. Everyone around here knows this, but it is a game that we play with our constituents. There is almost no program that is funded at its authorized level. That is not a floor. It is a ceiling. That is always the way it has been approached in Congress.

Special education, a program that I feel a personal affinity toward and it was a personal goal and leadership that I took with regard to special education to our States and to our schools and to our classrooms and for our kids with special needs, I am proud of what we have done. These green charts do not mean anything compared to what it has meant in the lives of the kids that are receiving a quality education and it has unlocked opportunity for them that is boundless. That is because we have invested some resources there.

I just want to end with this. It is not only about the money. We come down here with these green bar charts as if to say, if I spend this much it means that I don't care and if I spend this much it means that I care a little more, or here I am caring a little bit more now. Watch out, here I am caring some more. It is getting higher. I am caring even more.

And the more we spend, the more we care. And the more we invest, the more we care. And we measure by green charts the compassion, the caring, the value, as if money alone is the only measure.

I have got to tell my colleagues something. Take special education. Go talk to any one of their teachers back home in the special education classroom and ask them whether they have seen these increases in their classrooms. Do the Members know what is going on, Mr. Chairman? The States are taking that money, and it is not getting through their bureaucracy. We are getting this money out of Washington, but it is not getting to the classroom teacher teaching our child.

So their chart may look a little bit bigger; our chart may look a little bit bigger, and our charts look great, and if I care at $5 and they care at $6, maybe they care $1 more, and we get into all of this. And we are not looking at the results. We need to look at the results of these programs and find out whether they are getting to the kids in the classrooms. And I have got to tell my colleagues right now it is not. So we have got to provide the oversight. It cannot just be about the money.

And that is the last chart I want to show. For all of the chest beating about education and the priority, see that little red line of the total amount spent on education in our country? That is what the Federal Government kicks in. We are talking, on any given day, like about 6 percent. The people who are really doing the work here are our local school boards, our local State legislators, our local parents and community leaders. They are kicking in all this amount right here. That is what is being kicked in. It is this little red part that we all of a sudden think is so important and that we beat our chests about.

The Federal Government is not going to solve education, Mr. Chairman. Not with a big red line or a little red line or with this money or that amount of money. It is not about the money. It is about results. We have got to focus on results in education, and this budget accomplishes that.

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

For the purposes of entering into a colloquy, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the answer is yes to start with. First and foremost, I appreciate her leadership and concern about the research programs that we have for NASA. She does an excellent job there, and we really appreciate the leadership she takes in that.

The gentlewoman knows that the resolution, while it tracks the President's overall number, it does not make any specific decisions about the different funding levels that we have in some of these major categories. It goes actually back to what the gentleman was saying on education. We cannot find in the budget any of what the gentleman from Wisconsin just talked about in education. It is a great speech, but we cannot find it in the budget. And the same is true with so much of this.

So the Committee on Appropriations is the one that is going to make these determinations. The same is true for NASA. And we appreciate that her advocacy and mine is going to have to be brought to bear as we work on that.

So that being the case, I do commit to the gentlewoman to bring back from the conference language clarifying that the budget does not make these specific assumptions regarding the President's proposed level for these programs and urging that the levels for NASA should be reassessed. There is no question that R&D is important, and I know the appropriators agree with that. I know the gentlewoman from Virginia agrees with that. I agree with that, and I have no doubt that they will bring back a bill with that in mind.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

In response to my friend from Massachusetts, he is right and I agree with

him. Let us get that in the Record right now. There are those moments in time. In fact, he was not here for our colloquy earlier; so let me just report to him. I am sure I am not going to get his vote, but I will report to him anyway. We agree with the local control aspects of CDBG. There are so many on our side, including myself and so many others, who agree that this is local control, local decision-making, getting this back to communities.

In the budget that we have, we did not take the President's assumption with regard to CDBG. We do not necessarily foreclose the ability to look at the program and make improvements. But we plussed-up the function for CDBG by $1.1 billion, and we increased it for that purpose; and we also did not make any assumption with regard to the President's new proposal of the Strengthening America's Communities Block Grant or transferring the program from HUD, Housing and Urban Development, to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The bottom line is there are many things that we will disagree with on budgets, and like I said, I doubt I am going to get the gentleman's vote, but I do think we have a bipartisan commitment to this. It is one area that I know we will continue to work on. And there may be other disagreements, but this is an area that we have worked on together.

I commend the gentleman for his leadership, and we are providing that leadership as well. And we hope the President can come forward with a little better rationale as to why this program, in particular, needed the changes that he proposed in his budget. If there are reforms that are needed, then let us reform the program. We will work together. If there are bad apples spoiling it for the rest of the bunch, then let us get rid of those bad apples. Let us figure that out. But let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. I agree with the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just respond and say it is fascinating. It is fascinating how we got into this situation. And if you heard the gentleman who just spoke, if you wondered whether or not he maybe had been reading the newspaper and may be forgetting all of the things that have been happening to our country over the last going on 4 years, you might wonder if anyone has been paying attention, because he is correct.

On September 10, 2001, we were running a surplus. There is no question that that was a good thing, something was very positive about that. But, unfortunately, we learned the very next morning that we had a homeland security deficit, that we had a national defense deficit. Our economy was already in a recession, and we found out we had an economic growth deficit. So even though there was more cash in the Federal Treasury than we were using, and you can call that a surplus, that did not mean we were meeting the needs of our country. There were many other challenges that we had to meet, and that next morning we found out.

And all of the votes, all of the spending votes, I will go back to the record, all of the spending votes that the gentleman was just talking about under our management, the gentleman from Illinois voted for; voting for our troops, voting for homeland security, voting for education. I will go back to each one of those appropriations bills and the gentleman from Illinois voted for each one of those. The only one he does not like, if you take away all of the clutter, is he wants to increase taxes. He did not like that part. But all of the spending he voted for.

So, let us just boil it down: There are people who want to increase taxes, and that is fine, and there are people who want to control spending, and that is also fine. But it is not all of this mismanagement.

People say Republicans did all of this mismanagement. I think Osama bin Laden had a lot more to do with where we are today with the deficit than anybody else, than anybody else.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of me taking this time was just to remind everybody that it was not just Republicans that were here voting for those things, and there were probably a lot of reasons why we got into this situation that had nothing to do with Jim Nussle or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). It probably had more to do with Osama bin Laden than just about anybody else.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman yields time, if I might yield 5 minutes to a Member, and then I would also be willing to contribute a little bit of time to the debate here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to just respond gently, firmly in some respects to some of the characterizations I disagree with of the budget that I am presenting and the Republicans are presenting.

I definitely respect the Congressional Black Caucus in their effort to put together a budget. I admire anybody who tries to go through this process and comes out of the other end with an actual work product that they can come to the floor to defend.

So, as a result of that, I am pleased to yield time so that they can present that budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) so that we can continue this discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) to close the debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, first let me say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), there is absolutely no one on the Democratic side that I admire more than the gentleman and the partnership we have in working on these budgets. This is the culmination when we come to the floor and have these debates, and I really respect the way he handled the debate. We appreciate that.

We disagree how we are going to accomplish the goals that our Nation needs to set, but we know the goals are pretty important. We have to keep the country strong. There is no question about that. It is really nonnegotiable. There is not a constituent I talk to that would suggest at this point in time in our history we do not want to protect the country. Our borders, everything from terrorism to illegals and drugs and all sorts of things coming into the country, we have to protect the country, number one.

Number two, we have to make sure that the economy keeps growing. That should not be an item up for negotiation. It is so important that families have the resources to deal with the challenges that they face every single day.

We come out here and talk about other people's money very easily on the floor of the House, what the taxpayers send us in order to solve problems; but we really do need to be mindful of the fact that the most important budget that we ought to be focused on is the budget decided and discussed and sweated over and argued about around kitchen tables across the country. That is such an important budget.

We worry about education here, but parents do that every night after their kids go to bed. We worry about health care here, but seniors do that every night when they are laying in a bed in a nursing home. We worry about creating jobs, but small business people do that every night in the quiet of their closed shop. They try and make sure their cash register all added up.

It is funny, I have heard people say we should not worry about the error rate in the food stamp program, which is now 6 percent. Mr. Chairman, 6 cents on every dollar in this country in food stamps is wasted. We say that is an improvement because it is down from 19 percent. The interesting and fascinating thing about that is if a small business person ended the night, closed that shop door and turned the open sign around to closed and rang up the cash register and they were missing six pennies, they would stay all night to find it, all night long to find those six pennies that did not add up in their cash register. But we say, oh, that is an improvement. Amazing. It really is amazing. That is what I turn to first.

This is the record of Federal Government spending over the last 10 years. In these numbers is what I was talking about, the concern of education, the concern of homeland security, the concern of national defense, the concern of job training, the concern of our environment, the concern of transportation, the concern of research and development. All of the concerns that we have talked about are embodied in numbers because in Washington we define compassion from one year to the next, solutions from one year to the next of spending more.

We have all seen that. If I spend just a little bit more from one year to the next year, I must care, I must be solving problems, I must be dealing with real solutions. If I just spend a little bit more money, I will solve all of the problems in the country. Every problem that every family ever addressed around their kitchen table can be solved with just a little bit more Washington spending. That is the fallacy of what we are debating tonight, and that is that if we believe, truly believe that all we have to do is take more money to Washington in the form of taxes and define and design and develop just one or two more programs that hires a number of more bureaucrats, that builds maybe a few more office buildings to be filled with those bureaucrats, and they drive in from Virginia or Maryland or wherever they drive in from, so that they care more about what is going on than the families back home, if we really believe that is solving problems, then Members are going to have a budget to vote for.

It spends more money, it increases taxes, and it purports to solve problems. Unfortunately, we are not solving those problems by doing that. My favorite saying that I heard on the floor, and I do not remember who said it, a long time ago, if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got.

If Members think about it, we have been trying to solve problems in Washington with more spending for quite some time now, and those problems do not seem to go away. Last year we decided to put the brakes on spending. We said yes, we have had the excuse of September 11, of the war on terror, of needing to deal with homeland security and needing to deal with our economy; but it is time to be done with all of that. And so what we did was we said let us put the brakes on spending just a little bit.

What happened? When the economy grows and when we control spending, just like the Republican budgets in the late 1990s when we got back to balance, and President Clinton can take credit for anything he wants, that is fine. But everyone who has studied government knows that the buck stops here when it comes to spending. When it comes to fiscal responsibility and article I of the Constitution, we are the ones in charge of the budget. Members know that.

As a result, last year with fiscal discipline and a growing economy, we were able to reduce the deficit 20 percent in 1 year. That is good news, but we need to build on that.

What our budget does is it says, let us continue to build on that success every year with more and more deficit reduction. That is what we accomplish with the spending discipline within this budget. We say not only should we hold the line on discretionary spending, that is the spending we will argue about every day out here during the appropriations process. We want to actually reduce some spending there. We want to have the first reduction in non-security spending since Ronald Reagan was in town back in 1980. That is good news. We also know that we have to start tackling what we call the mandatory spending, or the automatic spending. And so we accomplish that because we know that mandatory spending, that is this yellow part, the part here that back in 1995 was half the budget and now is more than half the budget and is growing to even more than half the budget, almost two-thirds of the budget if we do not start controlling our spending in these accounts.

I want to give you an example of what we would have to do. As much as there will be all sorts of discussion today, and there has been, and tomorrow about Medicaid, you cannot find the word Medicaid in the budget. The reason is because what we do is we say the committees of jurisdiction, in this instance the Committee on Energy and Commerce, should be given responsibility to look through the programs and see if they cannot only find savings but reform the program, to do a better job of delivering the product to the people who need it. If it is true that people sit up at night worrying about how they are going to pay their bills, how they are going to meet their health care needs, then let us help them figure that out. But let us not continue to do a program that every single Governor would admit is unsustainable. We have got quotes from here to the end of the day from Governors who have written us that have said, This program cannot continue. It cannot continue.

All right. So what do we have? We have one budget on the Democratic side. We actually, I think, will have two or three budgets on the Democratic side that do nothing with regard to Medicaid. No reforms. No changes. Let us continue to always do what we have always done, and that is continue what has been what some people say is fraudulent transfers that are going on at the State level, where Governors

and State legislators are put in a position where they actually have to figure out how to game the system, how to manipulate the system so that they can get more money from the Federal Government. I have heard of situations that colleagues of mine have told me from around the country where we actually have a situation where kids, teenagers who are eligible for foster care, good kids, good teenagers, that are difficult to find families for so that they can integrate and become part of a family again, but the State, a couple of States in particular, what they have done is they have devised a way to lock those kids into mental health residential treatment centers. Why? So they can get more money from the Federal Government. If you are a foster parent or you are someone who is thinking about adopting, opening up your heart, your family, your home to a child, to a kid, to a teenager and giving them a life, try doing that with a stigma of having mental health problems, of having challenges in that regard, because of the stigma of being part of that State program, not because they were helping the kid but because they wanted more money. We are hurting people with some of these programs.

I realize if you measure your compassion from one year to the next with spending, I cared at $92 billion this year. Oops, there I went and I cared a little bit more that year. Then I cared at $101 billion. Then I really cared at $108 billion. Boy, my caring and compassion is going up. That is not how we should measure it. We should measure it on results. Are these programs working? Are they helping families? Are they helping kids? Are they helping communities? Are they solving the problem that Medicaid ought to be solving for people with long-term health care concerns, people with disabilities, people who require indigent care? That is what we ought to be asking.

What do we do in this budget? We say, Commerce Committee, go to work. Invite the Governors to come to Washington to give us their proposal. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I sat in a room with Governors where they said, ``Don't arbitrarily let the number drive the policy.'' That is exactly right. The number should not drive policy. This number should not drive policy any more than it ought to determine compassion. But there is only one way to get the Governors to come back to Washington. They were here the first time. The only way to get them back the second time is to have a process that requires reform and that is exactly what this budget does. It says, by September, we want you to come back with ideas for reform. Just as a result of this, they have committed to come back by June with a reform proposal that the Governors are going to offer that we can work together with the administration to try and come to a solution and try to come to some agreement on. That is a positive step forward. That helps us with a program that most people think is unsustainable and that helps us solve the problem of making sure that this goes to people who cannot help themselves.

What does the so-called reduction in growth look like? We have heard all the complaints on the floor today. One would think we were just eliminating the Medicaid program. I want to show you the chart of what this looks like after we are all done. This is what the Governors would complain about. This is what some of the advocates are complaining about. In other words, we are asking for just a little sliver, just slow down the growth. But it is growing every year. Every year it grows. We are just asking for a little bit of change, just a little bit of reform, make the program work better, less it help seniors, let it help people with disabilities, make sure it is solving the problem for families that do not have the resources to meet their health care needs. Let us also instill some personal responsibility. Do not just hand it out and give people first dollar Cadillac coverage without saying in return, Folks, you have got to be healthier, you have got to practice prevention, you have got to be personally responsible. That is what reform can give you and a budget without that reform will not give you.

I understand that between today and tomorrow we have got a big decision to make. The decision as it boils down to me is very simple. If you believe that taxing a little bit more, taking a little bit more out to Washington from all of these hardworking families across the country and hiring more bureaucrats and inventing more programs and trying to solve more of these problems from Washington, if you believe that is the solution, you need to vote for the Spratt budget. You need to vote for the Democrat alternative budget because that is what it does. It says increase taxes, increase spending and you will begin to solve these problems.

But there is an alternative and it is the majority. What the majority is saying, Stop the madness. It is the spending. We have got to get the spending under control. We know the other body left to their own devices may not do it on their own. We have already seen in a kind of a disappointing way that they have not really stepped up the way the President has and how we believe the way I have.

In closing, let me just say that we will be able to give, I believe, our kids and our grandkids the opportunity of a debt-free world if we begin with a small step again this year. I ask Members to support the majority budget.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) be permitted to control 10 minutes, or half of the time in opposition.

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

I will vote against this budget, and let me say why. It is because of my responsibility and duty to protect the base bill, the base resolution, the product that was worked and crafted in a very genuine way through the committee process, one that has the support of our majority, one that has the support of our leadership, one that has the support of our chairman, and one that I dare say has, and I believe has, the support of my friends who bring forth the budget resolution tonight.

As I said before when the Congressional Black Caucus came forth, anyone who has the guts to come out here with their own budget I have to applaud. I may oppose it, but I have to applaud it because I know what it takes to put together a budget. Whether the alternative budget has one person who supports it or 80 Members or 218 Members to support it, I commend the coalition for coming forth with their budget. I said the same to the Congressional Black Caucus because they have done this in a very responsible way every year I have been in Congress and for many year before. I really mean that. Anyone who is willing to put the sweat equity into it gets my admiration.

I reluctantly oppose this alternative because if given the opportunity to have a perfect world could we, should we work for more spending control? Yes, there is no question. For all of the haranguing that happens out here about the cuts, we know there are a lot more weeds in the garden we could pull; we know there is more reform that we could drive. We know we could work harder and probably find more spending to control.

We have some practicalities, however. One is we have some committees that have to do the work of achieving those reforms. I have worked with each one of those committees and the committee chairmen to arrange the agreements which bring the base resolution here today; and I respect that process, and I will support that process.

In addition, we have a President who is for really I think the first time since I have been in Congress willing to step up during a very challenging time in our Nation's history when we are at war and say even though it would be easy to use the war as an excuse and not worry about what is happening on the domestic side, the President of the United States has said we are going to control spending, work on the entitlement programs, and try to reform the programs and to meet the needs out there.

The fact that the RSC comes forward with a budget that goes a little further, as I say, I respect that; but I do not think that we are going to get the support behind it that we need in order to get it done. At the end of the day, that is what we need. We need the budget to pass so we have something to enforce.

I want to speak to that briefly because as congressional watchers may have seen or misinterpreted, the intramural discussion that went on and fighting that may have seemed to be happening between friends and colleagues, I interpret what the RSC was doing, the Republican Study Committee was doing with regard to enforcement to be the exact right attitude to have. That is if you are going to do the work of having a budget, then let us enforce it.

The good news from my standpoint is last year when we were not able to get a budget through both bodies, the House took the version we passed, we deemed it, and we enforced it. We stuck to it. At the final analysis of the Congressional Budget Office when all of the smoke cleared and they finally were able to close all of the books, you know what we blew that budget by, a $2.4 trillion budget, and we missed it by $400 million.

Now Members could say we missed it, but I would say for not having a budget in both the House and Senate and not having the budget being the force of law with the President, I would say that is a pretty good track record and one that I give a lot of credit to our Speaker, in particular, for having accomplished. I give them much credit not only on the work product of coming forward with a budget, but also their desire to enforce it. I stand ready to work shoulder to shoulder and side by side with them as we not only get that budget done, but enforce the budget the rest of the year. I commend them on their work product, and I reluctantly will vote against their budget.

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

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

As I said before, I rise with reluctant opposition. What the RSC has done is bold; it is worth consideration. It will be part of the consideration as we go through the process, I am sure, throughout the rest of the year as well as we consider the budgets in years to come. But I would ask, as the author of the amendment just did, that while consideration be given that we adopt the underlying bill. And, therefore, I oppose the amendment, but with a great amount of respect and admiration for the work that has been done.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with clause 2(a) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record the Rules of the Committee on the Budget for the 109th Congress.

These rules were adopted by the Committee on the Budget by voice vote at an organizational meeting held by the Committee on February 2, 2005.

If there are any questions on the Committee Rules, please contact Paul Restuccia, Chief Counsel of the Budget Committee, at 6-7270.

Rules of the Committee on the Budget

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--0pen 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

provisions 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.

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 5-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 and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 (S. Con. Res. 95, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 5). This status report is current through January 21, 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 S. 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 2005 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 S. 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 discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 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.

The fourth table gives the current level for 2006 of accounts for advance appropriations under section 401 S. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 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.

Mr. Speaker, the circle and legacy of service to the United States continues every year without end here in Congress.

Members of Congress and our professional staff arrive and depart, and because that departure may seem to go without notice, those who depart may wonder whether their service has in fact made a difference, and in some manner secured the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

I cannot bear witness to all that I have encountered in this circle of service, but, I will try for the departure of one very special friend.

Richard E. Meade has served me, the Congress, and the United States of America professionally, effectively, and unselfishly for over fifteen years.

He has served me as my Chief of Staff for both my Iowa Congressional office and the House Budget Committee.

During his tenure, his professional approach was one identified with integrity of purpose, quality of work product, and sincerity and honesty to every person he encountered, from the Speaker of the House to a citizen from Iowa.

One of the many beauties of America is that our freedom is more precious and important than any one person, and yet, without that ``mere person'' who is willing to serve freedom, respect freedom, and defend freedom, freedom could not exist.

Richard E. Meade is such a person who during his life has been willing to serve, respect and defend American freedom, and in doing so, has helped secure the blessings of liberty for all of us, and for his lovely wife Elizabeth and their precious daughter Constance.

Soon, memories of that service, like the memories of the service of so many others, may fade, and good people will step forward and continue in the legacy of quality service to the freedom we have all come to expect and too often take for granted. The circle of service continues.

My humble words of appreciation cannot, and will not, equal the quality and quantity of service you provided me and our country, but Rich, I offer them with my ultimate respect and sincere gratitude for your many years of dedication to me and our liberty. Mr. Speaker, I simply say, Rich Meade, thank you for my freedom!

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 and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 (S. Con. Res. 95, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 649). This status report is current through November 15, 2004.

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 S. 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 2005 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 S. 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 discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 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 the section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation.

The fourth table gives the current level for 2006 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of S. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5006, the Labor/ HHS Appropriations Bill for FY 2005, and to inform members that this bill is in compliance with the budget resolution for FY 2005 as applied to the House by H. Res. 649.

H.R. 5006 provides $142.5 billion in new budget authority and $141.1 billion in new outlays for programs within the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. This funding level represents an increase of $2.8 billion in BA and $3.9 billion in outlays over last year. That is a 2 percent increase over FY 2004 levels. This reflects the need to restrain the rate of increase for non-defense, non-homeland security domestic discretionary programs which provided the overall policy framework for this year's budget resolution.

H.R. 5006 complies with the budget act because the spending levels it contains do not exceed the subcommittee's 302(b) suballocation of new budget authority. Additionally, the bill is in compliance with requirements that it not exceed aggregate spending levels established in the budget resolution. Finally, the bill also complies with restrictions on advance appropriations.

Regarding this last point, the Budget Resolution for FY 2005 places a total limit for advance appropriations in FY 2006 at $23.2 billion. The bill before us today will consume the vast majority of those funds, since it provides for $19.275 billion in FY 2006 advance appropriations. All of the accounts for which advance appropriations are made in this bill are listed as eligible within the budget resolution. Since no advance appropriations have as yet been enacted, the bill does not cause a breach of this limit. However, the House should be aware that only $4 billion will remain available for advance appropriations should this bill be enacted.

I commend the Committee on Appropriations for bringing us a bill that funds many priority programs which Members care about while living within our means in an era requiring tougher fiscal discipline. The bill increases Department of Education funding by $2 billion over last year, and includes a billion dollar increase for Special Education, bringing funding for IDEA to its highest level in history. This is over three times more funding than Special Education received in 1995, and this is an accomplishment that we in the Budget Committee have helped to bring about through past budget resolutions which assumed substantial increases for special education.

Additionally, the bill continues the commitment that the House has made to the National Institutes for Health, providing $727 million more than last year. Worker retraining and dislocated worker assistance programs are also restored and augmented, which should help us continue to expand employment and ensure that Americans who want to work will be able to find good jobs. This is a responsible bill which fulfills our commitments to the public while living within the constraints of difficult fiscal times.

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 and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 (S. Con. Res. 95), which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 649. This status report is current through September 6, 2004.

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 S. 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 2005 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 S. 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 discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 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.

The fourth table gives the current level for 2006 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of S. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against section 129 of the bill because it violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits legislative language that directly amends existing law.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, there have been a lot of speeches already, and I understand it is permissible to speak to the point of order, but many of these speeches are just repeats of what has been done and can be done in regular order in consideration of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have the opportunity to respond very briefly to the gentleman from Texas. First and foremost, he is a member of the Committee on the Budget. He has been working on this a long time, as many Members have. There are some challenges we are going to have to overcome, there is no question. I understand that there is some skepticism about the bill that was passed yesterday, but I would hope that the other body would recognize the fact that a bill that was passed with the unanimous support of the House of Representatives could be expedited and that we could send a very clear signal to our men and women in uniform as well as their families that are looking for housing, that are having to deal with in many instances, as the gentleman knows far better than I, substandard housing, that we could deal with this in a very expeditious manner, the way we did yesterday, in an appropriate way, in a legislative way, not in an extraordinary way.

I would hope that the other body would take this up as quickly and as expeditiously as the House of Representatives did. We can accomplish that. We can do it in a bipartisan way as it was done yesterday. And it can be on the President's desk in moments, without further action, without further ado, without having to make them wait or wonder.

The military construction bill that we are considering right now, its future, we could argue, is also uncertain, given the fact that just about every prognosticator of the appropriations process suggests that we will not be completing the appropriations process on time this year, either as 13 individual appropriation bills or even as an omnibus bill but that, in fact, we may have to live under a continuing resolution for some time.

So while there is uncertainty about military construction and other appropriation matters, there should not have to be concern or question about our military families and what needs to be done as quickly as possible. It can be done expeditiously. It can be done using the vehicle that was passed yesterday by an overwhelming margin.

I would hope that other Members will not try any further delaying tactics for our men and women in uniform. I would hope that we can pass that bill as quickly as possible in the other body, that it will not be delayed, that it would enjoy the same kind of bipartisan support that we have here.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit because it violates Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, obviously I support the gentleman's opposition to the motion. Let me just point out as

well in support of his opposition that not only would it delay the military construction bill by sending it back to committee, because of the fact that we are going on recess as an example, it would postpone a decision about this because the gentleman, interestingly enough, complained about a technicality earlier. There is a technicality in this motion that Members need to be aware about. It is the words ``promptly,'' and ``promptly'' means when we get around to it a little bit later, not forthwith, which means right away.

What we did yesterday is more than promptly. It happened yesterday. It is over in the Senate. They can take advantage of that opportunity and pass that bill immediately, not in some form later on.

So I appreciate the gentleman's opposing this method even though I know his heart may not be in it as much as mine has to be in this instance.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I have been a player in this process from the very beginning. And as I did yesterday, I intend to be do whatever I can to help move this issue along in its proper form and in the proper manner.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the gentleman could take that from the fact that I wrote the bill yesterday even though I know there were some who may have been surprised by that. I do not think there is a Member in this body that opposes housing for military families. We just need to do it in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to this rule, and I do so without disrespect at all to the gentlewoman. She is a very valuable Member of this Congress and a friend and someone who has worked hard to make sure that when we write budgets, when we determine spending priorities, that we adhere to them. And that is why I rise in opposition to this rule.

This bill breaches the spending limit made under the budget. There will be people who come to the floor today who will claim that the only issue today is military housing when, in fact, the issue today is an $800-plus billion budget from which we can find many puts and many takes in order to adjust priorities here and adjust priorities there in order to make sure all priorities fit within a budget.

How does this process work? The Committee on Appropriations, appropriately and in a way that we all appreciate, filed their bill meeting what is called the 302(b) number for military construction, meaning that it fit within the budget when the committee process began. But there were amendments that were made in order to increase the amount of spending over the budget and over the amount that was prioritized.

Why was that done? It was done for political purposes. It was done to make points because, as everyone knows, in the Department of Defense authorization bill, the cap that we will be talking about today for military housing was lifted. So it is being taken care of. It is being taken care of in the authorization process, which is the appropriate way to handle it, the appropriate direction to take, and a way that does not bust the budget and allows all of us to do this within a responsible process.

This Military Construction bill breaches the allocations that the Committee on Appropriations established for the Subcommittee on Military Construction by $1.2 billion as a result; that is 10 percent of the allocation. We are not just busting this by a couple of bucks here. We are not just saying it is okay to go over by a little. I mean, there have already been three bills that have left the House floor as appropriations that busted their allocations, three bills that we voted on on the floor here, that were sent to the other body, that busted the budget.

So it does happen. It does happen by a few hundred thousand here, hundred million there, but rarely have we ever seen the chutzpa of coming to the floor with a bill that busts it by over 10 percent of the allocation.

How does the Committee on Appropriations usually deal with this? Very typically, very routinely, the Committee on Appropriations comes to the floor and they make an adjustment to their 302(b) allocations. In fact, they can even make an adjustment to a bill that has already left, and they have done that in the past. And in fact, as I understand it today, they will make adjustments to their 302(b) allocations in order to make the three bills that left here, busting the budget, fit, something that they routinely do currently and totally within their jurisdiction and something that we, as fiscal hawks and people that want to make sure that we adhere to the budget, appreciate.

The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has never brought a bill to this floor that busted the budget. Unfortunately, today this rule would allow that to happen. And that is why I rise in opposition, because we should not allow that to happen.

Military housing is an effective program, so important that I am disappointed that the Committee on Appropriations did not offset the additional cost with a spending reduction in other bills from lower- priority items, which is fully within their jurisdiction. Do they mean to tell me there is nothing else within any of the 13 appropriation bills that are lower priority than the military housing for our families who are fighting to defend our freedom? Nothing? Absolutely nothing? We cannot look for anything?

Just waive the rules, and not only waive the budget and the budget rules, but to do so almost 2 weeks after we had a debate on this floor saying the budget process is broken, we have got to come up with new rules. Why do we have to come up with new rules if we break the rules that we already have? Why do we adhere to the rules that we already have? Such as we write a budget, we allow the Committee on Appropriations to make their allocations within the discretionary accounts. They make that decision and bring bills to the floor to fit within that budget so that in final analysis we are able to stay within that budget overall and not increase the deficit and not borrow more money and not add to the national debt.

But we will continue to hear today that this is an important program and it needs our support. And it does need our support and it already has our support because it is moving through in the Department of Defense authorization.

The House should not be in a position of having to take up this bill. Under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, it is not in order for the House to even consider a measure that breaches the 302(b) allocation, Mr. Speaker. It is not even in order to consider this bill. And there are all sorts of mechanisms available to the Committee on Appropriations prior to bringing this bill to the floor, to make their adjustments to ensure that this bill meets its allocation.

The purpose of this rule is not to put a burden on enforcing the budget on the committee while it is moving the bill. Nevertheless, in a dramatic lapse of what I would call parliamentary responsibility and budget discipline, the rule waives this point of order. The rule shifts the burden for bringing the bill into compliance with the resolution away from the committee that is responsible, away from the Committee on Appropriations that we ask to make the tough decisions, to make the tough political decisions when they are political, like this one will have to be because people will make political points about this, about people not caring, about people not supporting, about people not wanting our military families to live in decent housing.

Well, there is not a Member of this body, not a Member of this body on either side, who should be accused of that or who would suggest that the men and women who serve in our military, who fight for freedom, should live in sub-quality housing. That is why we have the program. That is why the Department of Defense authorization lifts the cap and works to ensure that our men and women in the military have the ability to do just that.

Faced with the choice, and it is an unfortunate choice that I believe we are faced with today, of enforcing the budget resolution or supporting this rule, I believe it is my job as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to enforce the budget; to listen to the men and women in the military who think their choice is more important than all sorts of choices that have been made and are going to be made in subsequent appropriation bills, number one, and also listen to the unbelievable amount, it should not be unbelievable,

it is actually believable to me, but the growing chorus of people across this country that say you in Congress spend too much money. Set your priorities. Determine what is important. Support our military families, and find something that is not quite as high a priority to cut out of the budget, to postpone until next year, to eliminate entirely.

The waste, fraud and abuse that is going on in this budget, that is going on in this government, that goes on as a result of what we continue to perpetuate without making those tough choices, is what we have to come through. Are the choices tough? Of course they are tough. But remember 2 weeks ago when we had that budget debate; when everybody said please, take away those tough choices for me. Come up with new rules that have commissions, outside commissions, to make these decisions. Or let us do something so that I do not have to make these tough choices, so I do not have to choose between military families and waste within other Departments of the government.

I know what my choice is. My choice is let us eliminate the waste. My choice is let us support those families, just like everybody else here on the floor would choose.

Instead, unfortunately, what happens today is we have a bill that comes to the floor that not only busts the overall budget, but busts its total allocation for this bill alone by 10 percent. That is irresponsible to our military families, and that is irresponsible to the fiscal integrity of this government.

We should not adopt this rule. If it is adopted, I will move to strike this provision. I ask for people to vote in opposition to this rule.