Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a very distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I am sure I misunderstood what the gentleman just said. You mean to tell me he supports tax cuts? My goodness. He supports cutting taxes for people? I can't believe my ears. At a time of deficits? At a time of national debt? At a time where we are not meeting our obligations the gentleman is supporting cutting taxes? My goodness. There is not a scientific scintilla of evidence that cutting taxes is right, he says, but yet he supports cutting taxes? My, my goodness. Why would the gentleman be supporting cutting taxes for people at this desperate time in American history? There must be a reason.

Mr. NUSSLE. I believe I have the time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. NUSSLE. I just am shocked. There is no scientific evidence, Mr. Chairman, but we are understanding that the gentleman, and that there might even be in the Democratic substitute tax cuts? Why would we do such a thing when there is no science, when we have desperate times, when we have deficits? Why would we do that?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I hope my colleagues understood what I was trying to point out, and that is it seems very convenient for Members to come to the floor and decry the irresponsibility of tax cuts and yet propose them themselves. Isn't that interesting? Oh, but they are targeted, the gentleman will say. They are targeted. They are targeted for the exact right one person they want to target it for. Our tax cuts reduce taxes for every taxpayer in America. We didn't pick and choose the winners. We didn't decide who was appropriate and who wasn't appropriate. Every taxpayer in America, every taxpayer in America got tax relief under this plan, and it is working because, as the gentleman fails to understand, last year alone there was a 15 percent increase in revenue. Because there is scientific data to show that when you allow people to spend their own money, as opposed to having to come crawling to you to have a little bit of it back for the dignity that they seek from a big government; when they make those decisions for themselves, they make better decisions, and the economy grows and it expands. We have had 18 quarters of economic growth and expansion with 5 million new jobs created. There is your proof, and that is the reason why the gentleman comes down now and says, yeah, I am kind of for those tax cuts; kind of like them now. I don't want them for everybody, I will pick and choose who I want. I have decided who the winners and losers in America are going to be because I can make that decision. I am smart enough to do that. Well, on this side of the aisle, we believe everybody in America is a winner. Every taxpayer deserves that kind of respect, and that is the reason why we reduce taxes for every American. Every American is a winner in our vision of America. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to compliment the gentleman on his turn of phrase. There isn't anybody in the body who does it better, and I have enormous respect for him as well. But let me suggest that it is an attitude about who are winners. I certainly understand as the gentleman knows very profoundly that there are people who struggle in America. No question. But if you have an attitude about them being successful, about them being able to be successful and being able to be winners without crawling to you, without crawling to me, without having to crawl to anyone or be dependent on any government or any government check, that is a different attitude than the one I hear so often from colleagues who come here saying that the only way they will ever survive is if government is there, and that is not how our country was founded, as the gentleman knows better than anyone. That is exactly why we believe everyone in this country is a winner. Let me also suggest to the gentlemen that when the President spoke from that well saying he would not pass off to a new generation the challenges of this generation, that speech was given approximately 8 months before September 11, 2001. In those 8 months before and in the 5 years since, we have learned a lot, haven't we. I would suggest that we are working hard together, often in a bipartisan way, to ensure that we do not leave terrorism to the next generation, to ensure that we do not leave Katrinas to the next generation, and to ensure that we leave prosperity in our economy to future generations. Certainly there are short-term challenges and there are short-term deficits that we need to deal with. But to suggest that the President somehow woke up today with the same challenges he woke up with the day he made that speech is either trying to not be honest about history or forgetting it, or trying to suggest that it did not happen, and I don't believe the gentleman would suggest that one way or another. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), who is not a member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and we are prepared to close. I believe I have the right to close the general debate, and we are prepared to close debate at this point.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, this is always a challenging debate because what, unfortunately, is not part of the discussion, in the debate back home in particular, is that numbers very rarely demonstrate results; that when you talk about a budget, when you hold up a document which, it is interesting, I have heard so much debate today about we are cutting this, we are cutting that, we are slashing, we are eliminating, all sorts of things. The budget of the United States basically is 43 legislative pages long, and you can't find those in here because what the budget does is it sets a framework, is all the budget does. It sets a framework, no different than what families do around their kitchen tables every day. They set a framework, a budget. And then as the bills come in, they apply those bills to that framework and determine whether they are over, whether they are under, what they can afford, what they can't afford, if there is an emergency what they are able to borrow, how much they are going to be able to invest in their kids' college or whatever it might be. Those are budgets, and we have no different course of budget right here. It is a framework. Within that framework many decisions will be made this year, decisions about education, decisions about homeland security, decisions about national defense, decisions about what we are going to do in order to meet many needs, many challenges, some choices, some circumstances that we know will rise this year and years to come. We have decided that in order to write this budget we had to anchor it to some pretty important principles, and that is what we tried to do. First, what are our strengths? As a nation, the most important strength we have is our people. I mean, that is what this is about. Those are the three first words of our Constitution, ``We, the people,'' not government, not bureaucracy, not government programs, not entitlements, not any of that, but ``We, the people.'' That is what is the strength. And our people, I will tell you what, when you allow, when you unleash them, when you empower them, when you give them the incentive of American ingenuity to go out and do things, I have got to tell you, it is unbelievable to watch. In my own home State, you see farmers produce the food for the world. You see that in so many places around our country. You see small businesses, I am sure in the gentleman from South Carolina's district, my friend, create jobs and opportunities and services and manufactured goods that not only supply the United States but supply the world. And when you unlock the economy, when you allow people to make those investments for themselves, I will tell you what, it is a wonderful thing to watch. And that is something beautiful about our country that has really been the reason why we are the economic wonder of the world, why we are the economic leader of the world. There is no question that there are other places around the world that would love to be like the United States when it came to our ability to invent, our ability to create, our ability to serve so many people, not only here in the United States but around the world. But if we don't continue to build on that strength, it could very well be lost, and that is the reason why as part of this budget plan we continue the work to grow the economy, because that is number one. The second item that this is built on is our military strength, our strength of power, our strength of being able to defend freedom here in this country and around the world. And there is no question that there will be differences of opinion on every side about this conflict or that conflict, but there is bipartisan agreement always on the fact that our United States military is number one. It needs to stay number one. When we put a man or a woman in uniform and ask them to go away from their family or their community, we make sure and we ensure and we do everything we can within budgets like this and like the budget that Mr. Spratt is presenting and like all budgets, we ensure that they have the best, that they can be the fastest, they can be the strongest. And certainly there are going to be differences of opinion of exactly how that can be accomplished; but the goal is the same, and our budget accomplishes that. We also believe that we need to defend our Nation differently than we ever have before. I understand that there are some people who come to the floor who think it is pretty easy to write a budget. Just do this, just do that. Try to do it after 9/11. Try to do it after wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the global war on terror. Try to do it after Katrina. Try to do it when 13 million people are crossing our borders unchecked. We have enormous challenges with regard to homeland security. We meet those challenges as part of this budget. Will there be differences of opinion in priority of how to meet those challenges within the rest of the process that we will engage in this year? Yes, of course, and there should. But we ought to also limit that spending and say this is how much we are going to dedicate to that, and, again, our proposals are similar. But in addition to that, we also know that the government can overstep its bounds. It can spend too much. And just like every year, we hear about pork barrel spending. We hear about earmarks. We hear about those special projects. Part of the reason that we have those is when we have unlimited funds to spend, people get pretty creative on how to spend it. Either as a constituent coming from Iowa or as constituents from around the country, I have never had a constituent come into my office and say, Jim, this project I am about to show you is not worthy of funding. In fact, they never tell me that we are spending just enough. They almost always say we would like a little bit more. So what a budget does is it says there is the top line; that is the most we can spend. And while there are certainly worthy projects that we need to fund this year, there are also projects that need oversight, scrutiny, need to be reformed, need to be changed, need to be put off until next year, or here is a word that we rarely say particularly in an election year: How about ``no,'' we are not going to fund that; it is a crazy idea. And to look them in the eye and be able to tell them that is certainly a difficult job, but it is one that we have to do. By setting that top line on spending, we accomplish that. Again, this is what this budget does. Finally, let me say that we do one more thing that we believe is very important, and it is a lesson that I learned one of my first years here in Congress during the great Mississippi flood of 1993. But, unfortunately, I and every one of my colleagues have relearned it almost year after year after year, and that is, regardless of what we have put in these budgets, there are unforeseen circumstances that will occur whether we like it or not. It could be an earthquake. It could be a flood. It could be the biggest hurricane in our history hitting almost a direct hit on one of our most cherished cities. No matter what we put in this budget, we may have a war. We may have a terrorist attack. We may have things happen that are outside of our control. But we know that they are probably out there and that they are lurking, and so what we have put into this budget is not only a fund in an emergency way to deal with that war, but, also, for the first time we have set money aside recognizing that we may have that earthquake, we may have that flood, we may have the tornadoes like we had this last weekend, and we had darn well better set some money aside for that rainy day, just like that family sitting around that kitchen table saves just a little bit to deal with what might be a leaky roof or a refrigerator that goes on the fritz. We have got to deal with those problems, and I believe this budget accomplishes that. And it does so in a way that recognizes what I tried to say in this debate. We believe in those people that we represent. We want them to be winners. We know there are challenges. We know there are people who need our help regardless of their ability to help themselves. And even though that is certainly the compassion of this country, we ought to respect the fact that dignity does not start with a government check. Dignity does not start by somebody crawling to a Federal agency and saying please help me. That is not dignity in America. Dignity does not start with a government check or with a big government bureaucracy. Dignity starts by recognizing our personal freedom granted to us by our Creator, not granted to us by a government bureaucracy or granted to us by the United States Congress. We fought a revolution over the fact that we are free and that our dignity starts in our heart because it is given to us by God, not by government, not by anybody else. And for us to continue to perpetuate the myth that the only way to distribute compassion in this country is by handing out freedom or handing out government or handing out a check to people, that that is the only way they will get it, I believe that is an unfortunate juncture that we find ourselves in in this country. Our budget does not continue to perpetuate the belief that in order for you to have dignity, it is found in these pages or it is found on this floor or it is found somewhere in Washington, D.C. The most dignified things that happen in this country are the decisions that are made by people and families in freedom in the United States of America, and the only way that can continue is if we continue to perpetuate that freedom. So while there is certainly going to be a lot of rhetoric about how for some reason we are cutting programs, we are slashing this, we are gouging that, when it comes right down to it, it is because we do not believe that these programs measure our compassion as a Nation. The only way that is measured is by getting people to be able to help themselves and creating the opportunities to pass on to the next generation. That was done for me by my parents. That is something that I hope to do for my kids, and it is something that we all hope for. And it is not something we look for from government. So I hope that we, over the course of the next days or time, pass this budget, which sets a blueprint down that not only measures our ability to deal with certain challenges. It sets resources aside to deal with challenges that may be unforeseen, and it recognizes that freedom starts with the individual. It does not start in this Chamber or in this document.

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

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a revised table for the current level status report published in the Congressional Record on February 1, 2006. As published, the table that compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2006 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees distributes the supplemental appropriations contained in the Defense appropriations act to the subcommittees that have jurisdiction over those matters. As revised, the table applies all supplemental appropriations to the subcommittee on Defense because they were contained in the regular Defense appropriations act rather than in a freestanding measure. DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006--COMPARISON OF CURRENT LEVEL WITH APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATION AND APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 302(b) SUBALLOCATIONS [In millions of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 302(b) suballocations as of Current level reflecting action Current level minus November 2, 2005 (H. Rpt. 109- completed as of January 27, 2006 suballocations Appropriations Subcommittee 264) -------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize an Iowan who serves as a great community leader and role model for youth, Wilfred ``Mickye'' Johnson of Cedar Falls. A native of eastern Iowa, Mickye has worked with the Classic Upward Bound Program at the University of Northern Iowa since 1988, and has been its director since 1994. Through his work, Mickye has helped countless students attend college and receive high-level academic instruction during their high school years. In addition to his duties with the Upward Bound program, Mickye has had a number of volunteer roles with various groups, including the Iowa Commission on the Status of African Americans, the Iowa Community Health Leadership Institute, the Waterloo Community Development Board, the Iowa Child Support Advisory Committee, and the Methodist Church Administrative Council. Additionally, he has worked to promote business opportunities and community involvement for African-American professionals and leaders in the Cedar Valley community in Iowa. Mickye's work on behalf of young people extends beyond the classroom. For seven years now he has been a featured speaker for my Youth Summit, which brings together students from all over eastern Iowa to learn about leadership, education, and teamwork. Mickye has served as a motivational speaker at this event, and he always gives a challenging and productive message to the students in attendance. He has often used the humor of a simple lemon as a prop to impress upon his students the importance of life skills and character education to improve their lives. Mickye received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Northern Iowa, and also holds a Masters of Education Degree. A believer in lifelong learning, he is also pursuing a Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration from the University of Northern Iowa. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Mickye Johnson for his good work. His service and leadership in Iowa make him a role model for any believer in education and community service.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Representative Cooper Evans, who passed away on December 22. Representative Evans served in the Iowa General Assembly from 1975 to 1979 and continued his service to Iowans in this Chamber representing from 1980 until 1986. He was a friend and colleague to many Members who still serve in the U.S. House of Representatives today. One of the reasons I made the decision to enter public service was because of Cooper Evans. As a young student at Luther College volunteering for Congressman Evans, I was able to see firsthand his dedication to improving the lives of Iowans. Following his service in Congress, he served as a policy advisor to President George H.W. Bush beginning in 1991. In that capacity, Representative Evans continued his service to Iowa by bringing his agriculture experience and offering his voice as a Midwesterner within the administration. Representative Evans led an impressive life. He served our country during World War II in the Army Corps of Engineers, using skills he learned at Iowa State University. When the United States began to strive for its goal to land an astronaut on the Moon, Cooper Evans continued his work as an engineer, as NASA's Director of Lunar Missions. In more recent years, Representative Evans worked to promote agriculture throughout the world and bring food to those in need through his work with Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance. This effort helped bring better nutrition and stability to those living in the former Soviet republics. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay my respects to Cooper Evans. He led a life of service to the people of Iowa. My thoughts are with Jean Evans and her family and friends, as they grieve for their loss, but also celebrate the life of Cooper Evans.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is interesting to listen to my colleagues who talk about the President's suggesting we invest in America and somehow they heard government only invest in America. Isn't that interesting? I can tell you that my folks that I represent in Iowa, when they hear invest in America or invest in Iowa or invest in your community, they think that means them. They think that means Americans investing in America. Unfortunately, we actually have people, ladies and gentlemen, who believe that when somebody says invest in America, what that means is take money from Americans, take it to Washington, invent fancy programs, fill fancy white buildings full of bureaucrats, create all sorts of bureaucracy and red tape and paperwork, and have those bureaucrats, with our blessing, invest in America. Now, I do not know about you, but I heard it a little differently last night. The President and I, and those of us who agree with the plan that we have adopted this year, believe in and trust that people make better decisions about their daily lives and the investment in their businesses and their families and their communities much better than the government can for them. We have a plan. That plan calls for growing the economy by letting people make those decisions with their money. We talk about money out here all the time as if it is our money. It is not our money. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the taxpayers' money. They are the ones who earn it. They are the ones who sweat for it. They are the ones who are concerning themselves every day about ensuring that they can support themselves, let alone being able to send a little bit of it out here. And the reason why we believe, and it has worked, that we believe that reducing taxes actually helps us grow the pie is because the facts are in. In the last 17 quarters, as a result of us reducing taxes, our economy has grown. We have heard people come out here today to say when you cut taxes it means the government is going to have less money. It is exactly the opposite. I think we need some of the President's science and math education for maybe even some of us. Because every time in our history that we have reduced taxes, the math shows us that the economy grows and actually more revenue comes into the Treasury. Last year was the largest increase in revenue to our Treasury, in a year when we reduced taxes. Now, you cannot explain that unless you understand basic economics. Our plan calls for growing the economy and reducing spending, and that is exactly what we did this last year. We held the line on nondefense, nonhomeland security spending because we wanted to protect our country, but we knew we had to reform spending in the discretionary accounts. Mr. Speaker, today marks the opportunity to close the books on this process, reform government spending. Let me remind you what kind of government we have got. In so many instances, we have what I believe is an ineffective Katrina bureaucracy. We saw a little bit of that down in the gulf coast, but what we all know is that same Katrina mentality and bureaucracy permeates so much of our bureaucracy here in Washington. Unless we constantly are vigilant about ensuring that we reform government at all levels, we are never going to get our arms around fiscal discipline and fiscal responsibility. Finally, this achieves savings, not cuts, not gouging people. My goodness, the kind of rhetoric you hear out here. We are trying to make a modest reduction, giving people at the local level, our Govenors and our authorities at the State level some flexibility so they can deliver a much better product for the people that we care about and are concerned about. These programs need our reform. You cannot assume because you have always done it one way, just continuing it without this kind of oversight and reform will continue to get good results. These programs have gotten good results in many instances, but too many of them are not achieving the results we need. We need those results. We can achieve savings. We have a plan to accomplish it. It allows us to do so by growing the economy, and I believe it is a fiscal plan that will continue to get us the success that we have seen. In the last 2 years, we have experienced $200 billion of deficit reduction as a result of this plan. I have no doubt we will hear from one more speaker that will second guess everything that we have done, and I will remind that speaker that the President last night, while they love to quote him about everything else, also said second guessing is not a plan, is not a strategy. If you have got a plan, if you have a strategy, we would love to see it. But thus far we have not seen it. We have a plan. It is working. We need to adopt it today, and we need to get about the business of reforming this government, achieving savings and ensuring that the taxpayers are supported in this body.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2006 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through January 27, 2006. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2006 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates. The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal years 2006 through 2010. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocation from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of the discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2006 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocations as well as the 302(a) allocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2007 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills or amendments thereto that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) 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. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who many in this body have had the distinct pleasure of working with during the past several years, and someone who has left a tremendous mark on the Congressional Budget Office. The distinguished Director of the CBO, Dr. Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin, will be leaving his position at the end of this month to take on the challenges and opportunities of his new job with the Council on Foreign Relations. Back in 2003, I had the honor of interviewing candidates and making my recommendation on who should be the next director to lead the CBO. And while I'd interviewed several superbly qualified candidates for the position, after meeting with Dr. Holtz-Eakin, the choice was clear. First, Doug possessed a wealth of economic and public sector experience, having served as the Chief Economist for the President's Council of Economic Advisers, a position to which he was appointed by President Bush in June 2001. Second, based on his reputation as a man of unquestioned integrity, combined with his history of providing consistent, strong leadership, I felt confident he would effectively serve the whole of Congress in an independent, non-partisan fashion. Last, but certainly not least, Doug is well known for his gregarious personality, and great sense of humor. And for anyone familiar with the always challenging and often thankless tasks regularly asked of CBO, these attributes are a tremendous asset to its leader. And Doug's work these past few years has shown that my confidence in his abilities was more than justified. During his tenure as CBO's director, he has effectively utilized the tremendous energy and talent of his staff. He has led CBO to make great strides in analyzing the impact of revenue measures on the economy. And because of his clear vision of how Congress and CBO could better work together, CBO's responsiveness and performance have improved significantly under his leadership. I have been extremely impressed and very proud of Doug's leadership and accomplishments, and would today like to publicly thank him on behalf of this Congress. Doug, we wish you continued success in the next chapter of your distinguished career.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 640, I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have a plan to reform the government and achieve savings. We present that plan to the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the record that it is now the break of dawn. It is no longer the dead of night. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank all of the staff that worked so hard to bring us to this point in time and the leadership on the Budget Committee, and I would like to pay a special thanks to the floor staff and the official reporters and the clerk staff and everyone who stuck around with us on this very late day and night and into the morning. The sacrifices that everyone makes for us we really do deeply appreciate, and we give you our heartiest thanks and best wishes these holidays.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 just passed.