Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground a quorum is not present and make the point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, well, then, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for yielding me this time. There is no one in this body who has worked any harder than he has in making this issue resolved, getting it to resolution. I appreciate his willingness to expedite this bill that I introduced today in order to help deal with the problem.

To those who are suggesting that this bill goes nowhere after it passes unanimously today, I just ask them, why? I see them shaking their heads, but why is it that the other body would stop military families from receiving this benefit? And why is it that the other body would oppose the Department of Defense authorization, as we hear is occurring? Why are they stopping everything? For our defense needs, our intelligence needs, our military families, everything is stopped. They have not even been willing to vote on a budget.

I ask the Members, is that a problem? Of course it is. Do we break our rules? Do we bust our budget in order to do that, in order to fix it? I would suggest no. You have the right to overrule that. You have the right to vote differently. I would suggest you do that if that is how you feel. But then do not come to the floor and lecture the Committee on the Budget about how the budget process is broken. Do not come to the floor and lecture the American people about deficits and national debts and tell me time and time again during the budget debate itself how when you are in a hole, you stop digging. I believe if I had a nickel for every time that speech was made, we could probably resolve the national debt and the deficit, because when you are in a hole, you stop digging.

How could you do that? Today the Committee on Appropriations brought to the floor a bill that busts the budget by $1.2 billion instead of looking throughout the rest of their budget, the rest of their appropriations allocation of $821 billion, to find enough money in order to meet the needs of our military families.

So they came to the floor and for the very first time since Republicans took the majority, violated a rule, bringing to the floor an appropriation bill that busted their allocation called 302(b), which I understand most people watching do not pay any attention to.

Yes, these are arcane rules, but the reason that we have these rules is so that we can try to get a handle on spending. And, no, it is not just for military families. I ask Members to look through that $821 billion and they will find many places that are less important than our military families. That is why this bill needs to be supported. We need to pass it, and we need to put pressure on the other body that stands in the way of all progress for our military, passing the Department of Defense authorization, passing appropriation bills.

We are not even going to pass the Military Construction appropriation bill before the election. I will bet my colleagues on that one. Will we do what is called a CR? Probably. But do my colleagues think we are going to pass that before this election? Do my colleagues think we are not going to have CR and CR and CR? If it is such an important priority, where are these people rushing to get this done?

So I want to commend the gentleman who is the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services who has jurisdiction over this issue, who has been working on this, who is bringing this bill today to the floor and deserves the ability to continue to work on this and not put it in an appropriation bill when it does not belong there, and it busts the budget.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will insist on that.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Missouri, I have even been told today I was shooting at Santa Claus. Somebody came to the floor and said I shot Santa Claus today. My goodness, I have been accused of a lot of things, but shooting Santa Claus and personally, individually, one Member stopping 24,000 families from getting that housing, let us review the record.

If this was so important, would my colleagues not think that the Committee on Appropriations, in their base bill as it was reported to the subcommittee, do my colleagues not think that in that base bill they would have written this procedure in? It was not done. It was not done. In fact, it was done as an amendment at the committee.

So I understand that this is now a pretty important priority for a number of reasons. Some of it is politics. Some of it is expediency. Some of it is probably due to the fact that we have a body across the Rotunda that does not appear to be getting much accomplished. There is a lot of that that probably makes it very difficult. But that does not mean that we bend our rules, we break our rules here in the House in order to proceed.

There is not one family today that loses their housing as a result of a point of order on the House floor. My goodness, if that was the case, there would probably be a lot more Members down here doing a lot of points of order on a lot more issues.

What needs to be done is, priorities need to be made. We need to within the bills determine what is important, and I would stack up military housing to just about anything else in most of these bills that come to the floor called appropriation bills.

People want to talk about priorities? These are the priorities, and the gentleman from Missouri is as strong as the gentleman from California in understanding that. But I am, too, and every Member of this body is, too. And I appreciate the leadership that that gentleman from Missouri makes every day for our men and women. But we have many leaders who make that same sacrifice, and I do not count myself in the back seat to any one of them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 4850, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

Under authority granted in Article I of the United States Constitution (section 8, clause 17), this bill appropriates Federal payments to the District to fund certain activities, and also approves the District of Columbia's entire budget, including the expenditure of local funds ($8.2 billion in local funds for fiscal year 2005). Although a vast majority of the funds discussed in this bill are local funds originating from the District of Columbia, I speak today only about the $560 million in Federal funds appropriated in this bill.

This is the ninth bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocation adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 9. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established the conference report to S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005, which the House adopted as its fiscal blueprint on May 19.

H.R. 4850 provides $560 million in new discretionary BA, which is equal to the 302(b) allocation to the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia; outlays are 416 million below the allocation. The bill contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, nor does it include rescissions of previously enacted appropriations.

Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution.

Nonetheless, because House-passed appropriations bills to date have exceeded their allocations by a total of $114 million, it is possible that conference agreements on appropriations bills will cause a breach in the BA ceiling unless corrective action is taken by the Appropriations Committee.

With that reservation, I express my support for H.R. 4850.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 4818, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2005. This is the [seventh] bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 9th. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established by the conference report to S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005, which the House adopted as its fiscal blueprint on May 19th.

H.R. 4818 provides $19.429 billion in new budget authority, which is within the 302(b) allocation to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and outlays of $26.742 billion. The bill contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, nor does it include rescissions of previously- enacted appropriations.

Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution.

I commend Chairman Kolbe's efforts to prioritize our foreign operations funding to respond to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, to support our allies in the global war on terrorism, and to support innovative approaches to foreign assistance.

In addition, I strongly support the record level of $2.2 billion in funding provided in the bill to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; of which almost $1.26 billion is funded under the Global HIV/ AIDS account, $885 million under the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund, and $54 million through other accounts.

I am pleased the Appropriations Committee was able to prioritize our critical funding needs for foreign operations within the fiscally responsible manner outlined in the budget resolution and, therefore, urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4818.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 4766, the Agricultural Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005.

H.R. 4766 provides $16.8 billion in budget authority and $18.0 annually in outlays--a decrease of $875 million in BA and $181 million in outlays from fiscal year 2004.

As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am pleased to report that the bill is consistent with the conference report on the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005--H. Con. Res. 95--which recently passed the full House but has yet to pass the Senate. The bill comes in at its 302(b) allocation for fiscal year 2005 and therefore complies with section 302(f) of the budget resolution, which limits appropriations measures to the allocation of the reporting subcommittee.

H.R. 4766 continues the practice on Agriculture Appropriations bills of changing mandatory programs to generate savings to offset discretionary spending. This year's bill contains nearly $1.3 billion in such changes to mandatory programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.

Let me conclude by commending Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur for a job well done in prioritizing the programs within their jurisdiction and coming to the floor with a bill that complies with this year's budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 4755, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This is the sixth bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 9. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established in the conference report to S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005, which the House adopted as its fiscal blueprint on May 19. Conforming with a long practice--under which each chamber of Congress determines its own needs--appropriations for the other body are not included in the reported bill.

H.R. 4755 provides $2.751 billion in new budget authority, which is within the 302(b) allocation to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative and outlays of $2.92

billion. The bill contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, nor does it include rescissions of previously enacted appropriations.

Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution.

I commend Chairman Kingston's remarks in the accompanying report underscoring the fact that with record deficits, a war on terrorisms, troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget request from agencies of the legislative branch cannot continue to be presented with requested increases as high as 50 percent. I welcome his efforts and the efforts of other members of the Appropriations Committee as we try to hold discretionary spending to a reasonable level.

In reading the final version of this bill I noted that the accompanying report directs the General Accounting Office to review the statutory responsibility and overlap of the jurisdiction of joint committees of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service. We should pause before we ask one congressional agency to examine the jurisdiction of other congressional agencies and committees of Congress. Also, it might not be appropriate for GAO to assume this role when it may duplicate the functions of some of the agencies it is being charged with evaluating.

With that reservation, I express my support for H.R. 4755.

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. 649. This status report is current through July 9, 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. Speaker, I come before the House today to introduce H.R. 4715, the Spectrum Accountability Act, which supports the adherence to sound principles of spectrum auction management, particularly the use of competitive bidding. This bill addresses the requirement for spectrum auctions and the need for the efficient management of this finite resource. The competitive bidding process has already shown us that a fair market value is best attained through the use of competitive bidding.

At present, there is a disagreement over the proper statutory application of the Federal Communications Commission's requirement to conduct spectrum auctions. There are some who suggest that current communications law is unclear as to when an auction is required. This bill reaffirms the obvious intent of Congress to use the auction process and competitive bidding for the grant of commercial spectrum, and clarifies when the auction requirement is applicable.

Congress has a duty to efficiently manage Federal resources. This duty is the same whether the resource is actual taxpayer dollars or public assets, such as electromagnetic spectrum, which are held by the Government. While it is the Federal Communications Commission's role to handle the operational aspects of spectrum management, this function must be carried out as prescribed by communications law. Congress was quite clear that auctions and the competitive bidding process provide the most efficient and appropriate means for spectrum management; this bill will dispel any remaining misconceptions on the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I hear from Members on both sides of the aisle that this is really a waste of time today. It is kind of a silly exercise. We ought to be having appropriation debate on the floor. We have got appropriations bill that are waiting in line with no prospect of getting them done on time this year, and yet we have got to do this.

I hear from some that this is really an exercise as a price to prevent obstructionism on the floor for consideration of appropriation bills, that if we do not debate that, somebody is going to obstruct the floor.

Regardless, let me say a couple of things. There is a budget. The House has deemed the budget. We await consideration in the other body of the budget, and this is a nonbinding resolution that we are about to talk about for the next couple of hours here instead of talking about appropriation bills, but I guess we are going to go through this exercise.

As the majority leader said, we are going to have some fun because we get to point out our differences, but let us just face it. This is a nonbinding, somewhat silly exercise, but we are going to go through the process and talk about the differences.

Mr. Speaker, in order to do that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the Committee on the Budget to continue the debate on the Democrat increase-taxes-and- spending proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to read the last line of the bill. The minority leader may want to read page 5 of the resolution she just defended. It is not a tax increase? My goodness. What does ``changes in tax laws sufficient to increase revenues by $18 billion'' mean? I heard one time if it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck. This is a tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to talk further about this Democrat tax increase resolution.

Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on this small business job-killing bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the Committee on the Budget, to continue the debate on this more-money-solves-all-problems proposal.

Mr. Speaker, to continue our debate on this Democrat increased-taxes bill, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. Speaker, to continue our debate on this tax-increase, job-killing bill, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on the Democrat tax- increase proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to respond.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want to ``bamboozle,'' so I would yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the point of this all is, this is a tax increase. They are admitting it. There were so many Members who came to the floor and said, oh, no, no, no, we are not really increasing taxes. But what the colloquy between the two gentleman from Wisconsin proves is, once and for all, this is a tax increase.

So if one wants to come to the floor today in the middle of an economic recovery and vote to increase taxes on small business, knock yourself out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

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

Respectfully, because I know the Speaker is from New York, let me yield myself 30 seconds and say I think a lot of that money we borrowed was sent up to New York. So when the gentleman is talking about what happened and Alice in Wonderland, let me just remind the gentleman that we sent a lot of that to New York. We had a terrorist attack. I know the gentleman knows that, and he voted for it then, and he did not say a word about it then. He said send the money. We need it. Do whatever it takes. Now he comes to the floor and he says, gee, I guess we borrowed too much money.

Well, maybe we did, but the gentleman should have complained about it then.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. It all comes down to who is doing the feeding of the oats. The government does not feed oats. That is not where the economic advantage of this country comes from. We do not pass out money to people here and say here is government money, we printed it, you get to have it. They get it from working. They get it from farming. They get it from taking risk. They get it from unlocking their door in the morning and letting in the public to their flower shop, to their shoe store, to their bank, to whatever it might be, unlocking that door and letting the energy and the economic engine of this country work.

That is what we want to continue: working. We do not want this to kill jobs. Just at the moment when we are increasing jobs, look what we have done. Yes, there was a downturn. In the aftermath of 9/11 and in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble busting and the aftermath of the Clinton recession, there is no question, look right here; that is what that is, that little downturn. But look how it is going back up.

And it is going up because the engine of America is working. It is not going up because of the chart on spending. When we increase spending in Washington, that does not drive the economy. That does not do anything except it spends money in Washington. What drives the economy are people in Wisconsin and Iowa taking a risk, building a business, employing people so that when they balance their checkbook around their kitchen table and they meet their obligations and pay for their kids' college and pay for health care and turn on the lights and pay for groceries, they can do it. It is not because, with all due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we send them a check. Because that does not do anything.

The check they want to make is a paycheck, not a government check. Every single person in America wants a paycheck. And that is what we have done. We have created paychecks. Look what the spending side of this does. They are saying we are not spending enough in Washington. Look at all of this increase. Look at all of the debt that they are complaining about. And on top of all of that, they say, no, the problem is we are still not spending enough money in Washington. And the thing they misconnect is that that money in Washington came from somebody, a taxpayer.

Money does not start in Washington. Money starts in Iowa, in Wisconsin, across the country, in people's pockets, in small businesses. That is where it starts. And they want to take more of it, they want to kill those jobs, so that they can hand out more money, so that they in Washington can have the power. We do not want that to happen. We want the power to be around the kitchen tables of Iowa and Wisconsin. That is why we have opposed their big tax increases.

As far as the spending, the taxes, that is obvious those increases are ridiculous. But the increases in spending, one can always say we want to hand out more money in order to demonstrate our compassion. And we have told them about the increases in education, the increases in veterans, the increases in health care, the increases for the environment, for all sorts of programs, and to make sure our country was protected. But on top of that, they say, you know what, I think we can even be more compassionate. We are going to hand out money and tell people we care.

Well, quite honestly, I think it is time for to us start looking around for the waste. I believe that, instead of this debate on the floor today, what we should have done is had an appropriation bill come up. That is what we should have done. We should have started going through all the accounts and look for ways where the Federal Government is not spending that money as wisely as the people back home in Iowa and Wisconsin.

We do not want to kill jobs; we do not need to increase spending. We do not need a resolution like the Democrat proposal on the floor today to tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend more and more in Washington. This needs to be done around the kitchen tables of Iowa, not the committee tables in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I hope Members vote against this ill conceived proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Chairman, the most important job of the House Committee on the Budget which I have the honor of being the Chair is really twofold. First is to put together and pass in the House a responsible, realistic blueprint to guide the spending and revenue decisions for the Federal Government. We did that. We completed a budget over a month ago when this Chamber adopted the conference report for the budget for fiscal year 2005. Getting a budget is difficult enough. Now comes the second part of the job and that is to ensure that you stick to it. Getting the budget means that you have been able to get a majority of Members to agree on the levels for spending, on the levels for revenues and to bring together those very different ideas because, trust me, there is no such thing as a perfect budget by any stretch of the imagination. My good friend from Florida reminds me of that every once in a while.

But we do get a document that tries to mold and shape the hopes and

dreams and the budget priorities for the Nation in a document, and then we work to stick to it.

Since the gentleman from Florida came on the floor, the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, let me say something about the House and our ability to stick to that plan. We have passed budgets in years past that have been difficult. We have dealt with terrorist attacks. We have dealt with a downturn in the economy. We have dealt with the need to borrow resources to deal with emergencies we never managed. We had to deal with new priorities no one had ever heard of, new Departments like Homeland Security; and new initiatives such as a global war on terrorism, a war in Iraq, and a war in Afghanistan. And I have to tell the Members that in each one of those turns, committees have worked together in order to accomplish that. There is no doubt that once in a while committees will have difficulty coming to agreement on certain priorities and ideas; but once we do it, there is general agreement and effort to stick to it. And when we talk about sticking to it, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and his committee have done an excellent job of sticking to it.

We have increased spending over the last number of years at a rate that has been unprecedented, in many respects because we have had unprecedented need, particularly in homeland security, national defense, intelligence, and emergencies that we have had to deal with. But even the nondefense or nonsecurity accounts have increased at an alarming rate, twice the rate of inflation. And so it is no wonder that Members will come to the floor from time to time, we saw that debate earlier today, and say, look, spending is out of control.

Unfortunately, we often focus far too much attention and energy on just what we call the discretionary appropriation accounts, the 13 bills that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has to shepherd not only through the House floor but also through the Senate and to final passage. That process has been difficult. We are behind in that process, and I have no doubt the chairman will remind me that having this discussion probably puts us even further behind.

But we are having this debate, nonetheless, because once we have a budget, we also want to make sure we stick to it. And that is why an enforcement bill has come to the floor.

I will definitely report to my colleagues that I would much rather have this debate after the other body had passed the conference report, but they are tied in knots over there across the rotunda on the other side of the Capitol. Politics, Presidential elections, all sorts of things are tying up all sorts of items in the other body, going to make it very difficult for us to pass budgets, appropriations, get judges confirmed, all sorts of a myriad of issues that make that difficult.

As a result of having some difficulty in spending and having difficulty in getting a budget through the other body, the third item which I want to bring up is huge increases in what we call mandatory spending through our Federal Government. Mandatory spending, as most of my colleagues know, are those spending initiatives which are on auto pilot, meaning we have passed a law to fund a program, and unless we change the law, the funding continues. Medicare is probably one of the best examples of that. We just had a huge change in Medicare to provide a first-ever prescription drug benefit for seniors. It costs a lot of money, though, and that has grown much faster as a result than even many of the discretionary accounts.

So as a result, there are Members who come to the floor frustrated by the increases in spending, frustrated because there are times when the budget is not followed, and thinking that if we change the process on how we achieve the budget or if we change the process on how we discuss appropriation bills, that will solve everything. And I am part of that camp from time to time.

But I must remind all of us before we start this debate that when everything is said and done here today, it still comes down to how we vote. One can blame the process. One can blame the budget. One can blame the Committee on Appropriations. One can blame individual Members. One can blame past administrations. One can blame current administrations. But no matter what one blames, they had better look in the mirror today before they come down here to vote on anything and realize that spending increases when Members vote to increase spending.

And already the appropriation bills that we have seen cross this floor have had huge majorities, huge majorities, for very valid increases, in defense and intelligence, other issues that have come before our body. Why? Because the need is there. So those Members who come to the floor today and say let us blame the process or let us blame the procedure or let us blame another committee also need to take their fair share of the responsibility for how the process runs.

I believe that we need discipline, and we need enforcement of a budget once we get it. That requires what we used to have in this body, and that is caps in PAYGO. Caps in PAYGO, statutory caps in PAYGO, I believe, are necessary because it gives the force of law to what we have done. It makes sure that all three entities, the President; the Senate, the other body; and the House, are all together when the discussion occurs on spending, when the discussion occurs on taxes, when the discussion occurs on mandatory or entitlement increases. It ensures that everybody is there because we are all in this together. We cannot do one without the other. We cannot say it is only the Congress's prerogative because the President has to sign the check, he has got to sign the bill if, in fact, that is what he agrees to.

But it starts here in a process called the budget, called the appropriations process, and called the authorization process. So in order for us to deal with this, we are asking that the body today consider capping spending at the rate we just passed in the budget resolution, and just for 2 years, do not bind another Congress, just for these 2 years, and to also for really the first time address mandatory spending and its out-of-control nature by applying what we used to apply and that is pay-as-you-go to entitlements or mandatory spending. We believe this will help us. It will not be the be all and end all because there are still emergencies; there are still other ways that Congress spends money outside of that process. But this is one of the ways that we found in the 1990s to help ensure that spending control could occur.

Members are going to come to the floor with different opinions, and I respect those opinions. There is no question that people have a variety of ideas on how we should do this. But I would ask each and every one of them to remember that this is about each and every one of us, as Members, what our priorities are and how we vote. We cannot give that to another process. Nothing we do here today given to another process will, in and of itself, stop the madness of increases in spending that have been what many Members believe are out of control. The only way, when everything is said and done, is to cast our vote to control spending, and that is done in the individual processes of the bills that we consider here on the floor.

So we believe this is a work product worth consideration. There will be amendments to consider changes in the budget process and the appropriations process in order to help get a handle on spending concerns and on mandatory spending. But as I say, when everything is said and done, we have got to have a budget, we have got to enforce it, and we have got to vote that way on each and every bill in order for spending to be controlled.

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

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Ohio 10 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the chairman is correct. This will, in no way, limit the decision of the conferees for H.R. 3550, the level of highway and transit firewalls. It will be determined consistent with the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution and the contingency procedure contained therein in the conference report on H.R. 3550.

In either case, this is consistent with the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution, and it allows not as a ceiling but a floor to that conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.

More than anything else, I just want to make an observation: There has been a lot of coming to the floor and saying the budget process is broken. Part of the reason that this amendment is being offered is because it is the appropriations process that cannot get done on time.

We have had so many years when appropriations do not get done on time, and, because of that, the threat hangs over for government shutdown. It is the reason why we are looking, grappling for a way to make sure that does not happen. But it is because of the appropriations process that with the budget process and other processes around here have some challenges.

So do not come down and just talk about the budget. It is also the appropriations process that has challenges.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman wishes to debate, I would be happy to yield half the time in opposition to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, I only have one speaker, and that is to close.

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

First of all, let me say this has been a fascinating thing to listen to. Let me start by saying ``methinks thou doth protest'' just a little bit too much.

It is fascinating to me that in the middle of the appropriations process, all of these very good friends of mine, who are every one from the Committee on Appropriations chairman himself to the, what are often time around here called cardinals, subcommittee Chairs, who have the job of managing these appropriation bills, seem to find the time to come to the floor for this somewhat innocuous debate today. It is kind of interesting they spent their entire afternoon on the floor concerned about this process.

And I would suggest that it is not because the Committee on the Budget is where everyone is pointing the fingers. The Committee on the Budget did not cause the deficits that we are faced with here today any more than the Committee on Appropriations did, any more than the Committee on Ways and Means did, any more than the Republicans or the Democrats or the President or the Congress did. We spend so much time blaming other people and pointing fingers around here that we forget sometimes to look in the mirror as to how this all happened. And everyone is going to have their own version. I am not going to bore everyone with mine. But if they do not remember a couple of things that are important over the last few years, they are really missing the point.

We created a budget in 2001, and we had a surplus on September 10 of 2001. And then we all know what happened the next day. And thank goodness we had a budget, and thank goodness we had the flexibility in the budget to go into a room and say guess what, guys, the jig is up. We had to create a new Department of Homeland Security. I was in the room when the bidding began on how much money to send to New York. Do my colleagues know what the opening bid was? I will never forget it. I will never forget the way the meeting went. It started by someone mentioning that we might have to send $6 billion up to New York. Does the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) remember that? And by the end of a half hour meeting, the number was $40 billion. We went from 6 to 40 in one half hour.

Was it the right thing to do? Yes. Did the budget allow it to happen? Yes. Did the Committee on Appropriations cause it to happen? Yes. Did the American people support it? Yes. Did it add to the deficit? Yes. And thank goodness we have got the full faith and credit and the great economy that can bounce back from something like that so that we can do it.

So do not come here today, please, I beg of my colleagues, and blame the Committee on Appropriations for the deficit, or as I heard a gentleman actually suggest not too long ago that maybe it was because of the Budget Committee that we had a deficit. I mean, my goodness, let us be real about this.

The next thing I would like to say is that there was a gentleman who mentioned a moment ago about a perceived spending problem. Okay. If that is how he would like to refer to it as a perceived spending problem, that is fine. But would he please go home and talk to his constituents, because if they are like the constituents I represent in Iowa, there is no perception about it. They are telling me there is a spending problem in Washington that we have got to get a handle on. And, yes, Mr. Chairman, it is on the appropriations side, and 60 percent of it is also on the mandatory side. And I have said that until I am blue in the face. Unfortunately, a lot of the people who spoke have now left, and they never get the benefit of hearing me say that I do not blame the Committee on Appropriations for everything.

Last but not least, let me just mention the offer that the very distinguished gentleman from Florida, who is an excellent friend of mine, and I am honored to have the opportunity to even stand next to him on the floor and debate, the gentleman from Florida does an amazing job under extremely difficult circumstances, and he is right; I only have it to do this once. I have only got to pass one budget. He has to do it 13 times. Yes, that is heavy lifting. No question about that, and I respect that.

But having said that, to suggest we can come together and come to an agreement on a new process and leave out the Committee on Appropriations and to suggest this does not have at least one small part to do with how the Committee on Appropriations operates or how Committee on Appropriations' bills come to the floor, that is where we break down. It is when the Committee on Ways and Means says, You can do that, but just do not include me; or the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure says, as the gentleman said, Do for everything but what we firewall off; or the Committee on Appropriations says, Blame it on the Budget Committee, our appropriations process should not be part of this discussion.

If we are going to have this discussion, we all have to have the discussion, and we have got to put all our rules on the table. We cannot say, just say separation of powers say that we have the right to do this. And let me end with that.

There was a gentleman who came to the floor who said that this Committee on the Budget and the budget process was created to provide advice. No, it was not. It was created because back in the 1960s, there was absolutely no coordination during the 5 months Congress was in session. That is it. During the 5 months Congress was in session, the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Ways and Means, who managed revenues and appropriations, never talked to each other. And at the end of the year, maybe miraculously in a good year, there might be a surplus, but most of the time there were deficits. There was never a coordination.

And so the main reason why this was established was to reconcile those two processes, and that is why we have something now called the reconciliation process. And I overheard the gentleman and he is right. When was the last time we did that? We do not do it anymore. And that is why the process is broken. Because Members have been taken out of the process. The political part of this, small ``p,'' has been taken

out, and we are trusting that a process can get us to a result. And at the end of the day, I have got to tell the Members we can monkey with this process all day long until we are blue in the face. It still comes back to how I opened the debate. It is still about how we as individual Members want to operate in here.

If the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I want to argue for the next 10 years and have differences of opinion, we will never come together. If for some miraculous reason we could sit down one day and come up with a joint list of priorities, it would work. That is what it comes down to, Members working together. The process cannot supplant that. It still has to be Members making political, small ``p,'' decisions about how to represent their districts in this Congress.

So I respect everything that my friends from the Committee on Appropriations have said, but I would just remind them that ``methinks thou doth protest'' just a little bit too much. This is not about them. This is about us.

Mr. Chairman, my only purpose for asking for the time, like the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), I have no objection to this at all. It sounds not only like a good idea, but something I think we do already, but maybe not in the detail the gentleman from Illinois is looking for.

What I would certainly offer to do with the gentleman is to approach CBO in a bipartisan way and see if we cannot work out some way to achieve what the gentleman is asking for, possibly even without the necessity of having an amendment to the budget to do that. But the gentleman can proceed how he would like. If the gentleman wants more detail so that we can have more information about the accuracy, I am all for that. That may be something that the gentleman from South Carolina and I can do.

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, since it is possible this bill may not become law, if that is possible, and I have heard that, why do we not work on this anyway as a project. I think it would be important to get that information.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to change the gentleman's mind, I understand that. But we have heard a lot today about bringing everybody together. There is nothing like bringing everybody together by the need to pass a law as opposed to just passing a resolution. By doing it by resolution, the House can have a version, the other body can have a version, the President has a version. You can go through the entire year with three versions.

I understand we are not going to change the gentleman's mind or probably a lot of people's minds, but what the gentleman is suggesting is by doing it this way, everyone has to come together at least once. That is the reason.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

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

Let me just make a couple of comments, and then we have no other speakers, and I would be ready to yield back the balance of our time.

Let me just say, first of all, the gentleman from Pennsylvania said it very well. Let me just underscore a couple of things.

We have had number of votes on the floor, and I understand we may have

yet another one tonight as a motion to recommit with regard to PAYGO for taxes, as it has been called here on the floor, and every time this year we rejected that, and we basically said, look, the only people who pay for taxes are taxpayers. The government does not have to pay for taxes because the government is not the one that pays taxes. It is taxpayers that pay for taxes.

So we have made it very clear that tonight we want to discuss spending, mandatory spending, discretionary spending. That is the reason we apply the PAYGO provisions to mandatory spending, and it is the reason why we set discretionary caps.

What the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has done follows that exact rubric. He has a PAYGO provision, but he extends it to revenue; therefore, I would oppose that.

On the discretionary side, he increases spending above the caps where we are now or above the budget resolution by $12.5 billion. In my estimation, that is unnecessary spending at this time. Certainly, as we all know, during the appropriation process many people will come to the floor and suggest that we could spend money on this or we could spend more money on that or we could increase over here or we could increase over there, but again, so many of our colleagues on both sides have talked about restraining spending. I do not believe an increase in the cap is what we need to do.

So I would oppose the amendment. The discretionary cap does not need to be lifted an additional $12.5 billion, number one; and number two, we do not believe that anyone in this country pays for taxes except taxpayers. Therefore, I would oppose the amendment as a substitute.

As I said to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), we have no other speakers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to yield back.

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

First of all I would say to the very distinguished minority leader that the gentleman from South Carolina is a lot of things. He is a professional. She has hit the nail on the head. I would just quarrel with one comment she made and that is that he is nonpartisan. He is a very effective partisan, I would just say. We get along very well. He does it in a spirit that may appear to be nonpartisan at times, but he is a very effective Democrat and I would never take that away from him. He is a very effective spokesman for their philosophy, for their priorities and while we sometimes disagree, it is okay that he can do it in a partisan way and not a mean way at all, or a disagreeable way.

There are a couple of things I would just like to point out. First of all, the reason we came to balance in 1999 was, as the minority leader said, because we had a plan. That was a plan that was passed by this Congress, this Republican Congress. Second, she said that there were some jobs being created. Well, yes, some 1.4 million jobs since last August alone. If you want to create more of them or if you want to make sure that they get paid better salaries or if you want to make sure that they have more job security, I would just suggest to you that appropriating more money than we have in these huge increases for education, that is not going to increase their salaries.

For our kids, it may help them out and that is why we are increasing education, but that does not create more jobs. It does not increase their salaries. Taxing small business like the proposal that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) brought to the floor earlier today that we had the wisdom to defeat does not create jobs. In fact, most of those people that were being taxed under his proposal were those small businesses that are creating those jobs. Last but not least, you do not create jobs by driving businesses overseas with our tax policy in this country and many of the challenges that we have with our economy continuing to drive those businesses overseas to look for opportunities as opposed to allowing them to stay here and be competitive.

Reforming our trade laws and by voting to give the President the ability to go in and negotiate those agreements is something that we need to do.

We do have a plan. We have a budget. It has worked in the past. You do not need a pay-as-you-go rule for taxes for the government to worry about because the people who pay taxes in this country and pay for taxes, who pay as they go with regard to taxes, are taxpayers. Every time you increase taxes, they are the ones that pay. They pay as you go. As you go for more taxes, they pay. That is what we do not need. That is why we oppose the Spratt substitute, even though I can agree with the gentlewoman that he is, by far, someone who is not only very professional, but someone I am very pleased to work with.

I do it as gently as possible, but with obviously a note of partisanship that we often have to have in order to support our different sides of these issues.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) be yielded half of that time.

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

Let me just take a minute to respond briefly to one of the comments from the gentleman, and we can have an honest disagreement about substitute amendments and all sorts of things on

the floor today, but we do have a conference report on the budget. That conference report on the budget was passed by the House of Representatives. That conference report on the budget was deemed to be the budget for the House of Representatives. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is operating under that budget that was passed by the House of Representatives. We have a budget.

What we are not sure we have is the other body. They have not acted. They have not even brought it to a vote. I do not know what they are doing. I can understand the gentleman's frustration. I share that frustration. We hear that a certain party may be in the majority over there, but from time to time that does not always manifest itself.

But we have a budget. We will operate under that budget. It is a budget that ensures that we can strengthen our economy and keep it growing; that we can protect our country; and that we can make sure that our important priorities are funded. We have a budget. Those who continue to say we do not have a budget, it is simply not correct.

The fact that the other body has not yet voted on a budget is for them to answer, not for us to answer here tonight, and be that as it may, let me just make one other point.

They are not arguing over the spending levels. The arguments are over technical amendments that the other body put on to control their own process because they were having a difficult time managing it, not anything that binds the House. We are not bound by that particular challenge that the other body is wrestling with.

We have a budget. It has been deemed the budget. We will operate under that budget, and so I just wanted to correct the record and remind all of us that we will continue to operate under the rules of that budget.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, I need a refresher. I keep referring to it as the other body. What am I saying wrong? I want to know. When they do not pass the budget, I guess I have been trying to be as polite as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), even though I claimed the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close, and I first want to commend the gentleman from Texas for his work, and all of the Members who have helped him and labored through so many of these provisions. They have done a good job. They have done an excellent job.

I heard someone refer to it as the gold standard of budget process reform. It may very well be. It is not perfect, there is no question. There is no such thing as perfect. My job tonight is to defend the committee product, which is the underlying bill; so I gently oppose the gentleman's amendment because so many of these things look very familiar to me. I voted for a few of them earlier tonight. And I think a couple of them I might even have had an opportunity to write at an earlier time. But I gently oppose them.

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

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

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

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

I say first to my friend from Illinois, great job. He and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) have probably done something here tonight that none of the other amendments or substitutes even attempted to do, and that was to bridge the many varied ideas within our conference into one document, one amendment, one substitute.

It is going to have some opposition because it is imperfect. This entire day, one could argue, was an imperfect day. Some may have a different way of putting it, but today was about controlling spending. And as far as I am concerned, any day we can debate how to control spending is a good day. At the end of this day, and we are getting close to the end of the day, it is possible nothing will pass and there will be some people, including myself as I am driving back home, wondering why did we go through this then, if, in fact, absolutely nothing passes?

That is not going to be easy to necessarily understand for everybody that is listening except that we have got to start this discussion. We really do. I mean, there are too many situations out there that are going unchecked. They are going unchecked in the appropriations process. They are going unchecked in the authorization process. They are unchecked in the way we spend money on the discretionary side. They are going unchecked in the way we spend money on the mandatory side. And today was a discussion about how we can finally bring that into a system to put it into some modicum of check and balance.

It is not going to be easy to figure out. We saw a lot of different votes today from Members who oppose some things, they support others. The bottom line is we had to have this discussion. We had to have this debate. We had to have it out here on the floor in the light of day because nothing was working behind the scenes either. But we knew that we had to have this debate in order to begin the discussion about how we are going to control spending.

This is not about tax increases. I know the other side wants to have a tax increase. In fact, we had one of those debates earlier today on an Obey resolution that wanted to increase taxes. That is fine. We defeated that. This is not about an increase in taxes. The motion to recommit is going to be automatic tax increases. The motion to recommit this bill is going to say we ought to have what is called pay-as-you- go, as we described, for taxes or for revenue. All that is going to do is amount to an automatic tax increase that we do not need.

Today is going to be focused on spending, on controlling spending; and that is why we have we will have, as our last vote today, an opportunity on the base bill to vote up or down whether or not we want to have 2 years of caps for discretionary spending and pay-as-you-go for mandatory spending. That is what the vote will be about, and we will have the opportunity to support that or oppose that.

But let me remind us why we are doing it. We are doing it because these are the only two measures of spending control and budget enforcement that have proven to work anytime in the last 20 years, the only two, short of our own personal restraint and ability to vote.

And that is the last thing I would remind Members. Even if this does not pass tonight, even if nothing passes tonight, we are going to go back into the appropriations process. We will go back into the authorization process. And in that process, Members cannot just say let us turn this over to somebody else to do or another process to enforce. They have got to enforce controlling spending with every single vote they cast on this floor throughout the year. This cannot be the only time we discuss this in a process or try to blame someone else. We have got to start doing it on a day-to-day basis in the oversight we do and the votes that we cast on the floor.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the good news is it is working. The deficit this year will be reduced by almost $100 billion, we are hearing reports already, over what was predicted just 6 months ago, $100 billion because of the work that we are doing reducing the deficit, which helps keep that economy moving. That is good news. We have got to do more. We have got to continue the debate. This is the first step in controlling spending.

Unfortunately, I do not think we are going to pass much today, but we needed to begin that debate today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is correct. We have been debating this all day, and he is exactly right, but you just do not get it because you equate taxes with spending. You equate when the government does not take in taxes, somehow that is spending, and the reason you do that is because you believe that decisions should start here in Washington rather than at the small businesses and the farms and the kitchen tables of America. Those are the people who pay taxes.

We are not going to raise taxes. We have decided that. Seven times this year we have had this vote, and so we want to get to that vote, but let me just remind us of a couple of things.

Today was a good debate because any day you discuss controlling spending is a good day. Any day you discuss that is a good day. What is not quite good about today is that we are probably not going to pass anything, and that is because they do not want to control spending. I know that was tough, but before we start pointing fingers at each other, all I was going to say is that we are all in this together.

We can blame processes, we can blame appropriators, we can blame Democrats and we can blame Republicans. We can blame Presidents. Oh, sure, we can blame the other body. We can blame all sorts of things for what we do every day when we cast our votes in committee or on the floor to have spending continue out of control, and we can devise all sorts of very interesting processes to try and rein us in and to convince our constituents that if all we did was to pass a new law or pass a new process, somehow all of it would be fixed. This is about us. This is not about one particular committee or another.

Now, I understand why the appropriators today, with all due respect, came to the floor just a little bit paranoid about this process. Even paranoids have enemies. I understand, but rightfully so, they are concerned that we have spent way too much time only looking at discretionary spending, and that is why in final analysis what this

bill does is it manages the mandatory spending process with a pay-as- you-go requirement, and it manages the discretionary process by setting caps for only 2 years at the budget that we have all voted for.

We have a budget. We should stick to that budget. If we stick to that budget, we will control spending, and as a result already, if we stick to that budget, we are going to protect the country, make sure that our homeland is secure, make sure we can win the global war on terrorism, make sure our economy can continue to grow like it has for the last 6 months, which has been the fastest in over 20 years, and continue to create jobs.

The payoff is even better than that. If we stick to this plan, we will already see, I predict within this next month a reduction in the prediction for the deficit for this year alone by $100 billion. That my friends is controlling spending, and that is a good day's work, even if this does not quite make it to the finish line.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4613, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This piece of legislation is the most significant component of our wartime budget for America. It is the third bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Appropriations Committee. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established in the conference report to S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005, which the House adopted as its fiscal blueprint on May 19th.

The budget resolution set aside $420.8 billion in discretionary budget authority for the national defense function in 2005. In addition, the budget resolution set aside $50 billion for overseas contingency operations. As members recall, the administration's initial budget submission did not provide funding for Iraq and Afghanistan; but in consultation with the membership we decided that providing a mid- range estimate for those operations was the only way to construct a meaningful budget blueprint.

H.R. 4613 funds the bulk of the national defense commitment. The rest is funded in the military construction bill and the energy and water bill.

H.R. 4613 provides $390.9 billion in new discretionary budget authority towards funding the President's February 3rd defense budget request. It also contains $25 billion requested by the President as a fiscal year 2005 Iraq war supplemental, the repeal of $1.8 billion in rescission authority provided to the President in last year's omnibus appropriations bill, $685 million in additional funds for the State Department, and $95 million for international disaster relief and migration assistance. The bill provides that if this spending occurs in fiscal year 2004 it will be designated as an emergency and will not count against the budget limits; if it occurs in 2005 it will be counted against the $50 billion contingency for war-related operations provided for in the budget resolution.

Excluding the overseas reserve portion, the bill's funding shows a 6.6-percent increase from the previous year, and it builds on a 5-year average annual growth rate of 7.2 percent for defense appropriations. The base amount is equal to the 302(b) allocation to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution.

This bill represents the House's support for the nearly 160,000 U.S. troops performing courageous duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also contains the largest research and development funding ever, and the largest procurement funding since 1990.

H.R. 4613 does have one aspect that is a potential cause for concern: the bill reduces funding for operations and maintenance in by $1.8 billion from the President's February request. While there is a widespread belief that any potential operations and maintenance shortfall can simply be made up for in a future supplemental, I would raise a caution that Congress ought not to make it a regular practice to budget by supplemental for predictable events.

With that reservation, I express my support for H.R. 4613.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the appropriations process for fiscal year 2005 and the Homeland Security appropriations bill in particular. The actual appropriations process commenced on May 19, when the House agreed to a budget resolution that established an overall limit on appropriations for fiscal year 2005 of $821.9 billion, excluding emergencies. This limit was developed in the context of a freeze on non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending. The Interior and Homeland Security bills we are considering this week mark the first steps in establishing our priorities in discretionary spending programs within the overall limit established by the budget resolution.

The budget resolution provided a total allocation for discretionary appropriations of $32.0 billion for Homeland Security in fiscal year 2005, demonstrating the high priority that the House is placing on this vital area. This amount includes $2.5 billion in advance appropriations that were previously enacted for Project BioShield.

While there has been much discussion about the other body not achieving an agreement on the budget for the coming year, this House has done its job in adopting the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005, and deeming it to be in effect in the House by a separate vote. Now the appropriations process has begun pursuant to that framework.

Today we consider the second of these appropriations bills, H.R. 4567, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2005. This is only the second time this chamber has considered a separate appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which consolidates 22 Federal agencies and its 180,000 employees.

The discretionary spending levels in this important measure are consistent with the limits

in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005. The bill provides $32.0 billion in appropriations, an increase of $2.8 billion or 9.4 percent above the previous year's level. Fiscal year 2005 Homeland appropriations in H.R. 4567 are equal to their 302(b) allocation, and the bill is also consistent with the budget resolution.

H.R. 4567 does not contain any emergency-designed BA, which is exempt from budget limits. It rescinds $33 million in previously-appropriated

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 4568, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2005.

H.R. 4568 provides $20.0 billion in budget authority and $20.2 billion in outlays--an increase of $78 million in BA and $629 million in outlays from fiscal year 2004.

As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am pleased to report that the bill is generally consistent with the Conference Report on the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005 (H. Con. Res. 95) which recently passed the full House but has yet to pass the Senate. The bill comes in at its 302(b) allocation for fiscal year 2005 and therefore complies with section 302(f) of the budget resolution, which limits appropriations measures to the allocation of the reporting subcommittee.

A very important component of this bill is the funding for suppression of wildfires. In addition to fully funding wildland fire suppression activities at their ten-year average, H.R. 4568 provides an additional $500 million for fire suppression within the Forest Service and the Department of Interior in both fiscal years 2004 and 2005. I am authorized by the budget resolution to increase the allocation of the Appropriations Committee to accommodate this additional spending because the bill fully funds the wildfire suppression accounts. However, the appropriations for fiscal year 2004 does exceed the allocation in that year because of a slight breach in its allocation resulting from legislation enacted late last session.

H.R. 4568 contains no rescissions but does include an advance appropriation of $36 million for payments under the Elk Hills School lands fund settlement agreement. The advance appropriation is included in the list of anticipated advance appropriations under section 401 of the Budget Resolution.

Let me conclude by commending Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks for a job well done in prioritizing the programs within their jurisdiction and coming to the floor with a bill that complies with this year's budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the 302(a) allocations to the Appropriations Committee and budgetary aggregates established by the budget resolution. These revisions increase the amount of new budget authority available to the House Appropriations Committee to reflect both technical changes and additional funds for wildland fire suppression provided by the Interior appropriations bill reported to the House today. My authority to make these adjustments is derived from sections 312 and 313 of S. Con. Res. 95, as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 649 (108th Congress).

Section 313 of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 provides for an increase in budget authority and outlays to the House Appropriations Committee upon reporting of the first bill by that committee. This increase, which totals $7,158,000,000 in new budget authority and $14,516,000,000 in outlays, is necessary both to increase the discretionary levels from the discretionary limits that are binding in the Senate (by virtue of Section 504 of the fiscal year budget resolution) to the levels envisioned by the conference agreement, and to achieve comparability in the budgetary treatment of Project Bioshield between the President's budget request and the conference agreement. I am hereby increasing the allocation and budgetary aggregates by these amounts.

Section 312 of S. Con. Res. 95 provides for a supplemental increase in budget authority and outlays to the House Appropriations Committee if additional funds are provided in 2004 or 2005 for wildland fire suppression. The adjustment is available for fiscal year 2005 if regular appropriations provided by the reported bill are at least 10- year average of obligations for such activities. Because this requirement has been met, I am increasing the 302(a) allocation of budget authority to the Appropriations Committee by $500,000,000 in both 2004 and 2005 to reflect the additional amounts provided in the Interior appropriations bill. Outlays flowing from this budget authority total $330,000,000 in 2004 and $420,000,000 in 2005.

After the adjustments specified in these two sections, the 302(a) allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations becomes $786,065,000,000 in budget authority and $861,672,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004 and $821,919,000,000 in budget authority and $905,748,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2005. The corresponding budgetary aggregates become $1,881,055,000,000 in budget authority and $1,903,832,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004 and $2,012,726,000,000 in budget authority and $2,010,964,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2005.