Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), one of the eight very distinguished committee Chairs who worked on the bill. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) from the Resources Committee. (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to find where we are taking away picnics now. I am looking for picnics in here. I may not vote for this now. I did not realize we were taking away picnics, of all things. My goodness. How could we do that, my friend. I would now like to yield to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for 2\1/2\ minutes.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, except the gentleman forgot Osama bin Laden, and I thank the gentleman for that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee, so maybe he can answer some of the diatribe that we heard.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Democrats come to the floor and they want us to only remember two parts of a very large story. They want us to remember back in May now of 2001. It is kind of an interesting date they picked out of the air, May of 2001. What a wonderful time. Can we all remember back to that time of innocence? Can we all remember back to that time? They want us to remember a time of surpluses. Everything was perfect. They make it sound like such a blissful time. What they do not want to remind you is that we were suffering at that very moment from a Clinton recession, a Clinton recession where the stock market bubble burst, the dot-coms were failing. We had corporate scandal, and the stock market was plummeting. We saw some real challenges. We stepped into that breach. We made a very important economic decision that people spending their own money, investing their own money, making decisions in the towns and cities and suburbs and counties of our great land is the best way to grow our economy. It worked and we did create jobs, and we did provide prosperity, and we do know how to do it again. But then they jump ahead. They do not want you to remember any more of 2001, not 2002, not 2003, 2004. All the way to 2005 is where their story goes next, and it is deficits as far as the eye can see. They do not want you to remember about what happened on September 11. They do not want you to remember the fact that we are now in the middle of prosecuting a global war on terror with our men and women in the field that now they want to recklessly call home and not even want to fund. What they do not want to recall is the fact that we had reforms that we needed to put into our homeland security to protect our country. They do not want us to recall any of the emergency spending for New York or for the Pentagon. They do not want you to remember the needs that we had when natural disaster struck our country and where, in minutes, the Congress was willing to come back and spend whatever it took to make sure our people were taken care of. They do not want you to remember any of that. They voted for it. They voted for a lot of that spending, but they do not want you to remember that. They just want you to think that Clinton caused surpluses and now we are in deficits; do not think of anything else in between. Well, you know, there is a lot in between. It may be a good political plan what they are putting on the floor today. It may be great in a press release. It may be good in a 12-step press release by a Blue Dog budget. It may be great if you are going to go home and run attack ads. It may be great if you are just getting ready for the next election. But if you want to govern, you need a plan. If you want to govern, you have got to put it on the table. If you want to govern, you have to be serious about the activities and not just come to the floor and be negative. If you want to govern, you need to put it out so that we can decide whether it is the right way to go or not. Well, we have a plan. It reforms government. It grows the economy, it protects America, and it gets us moving again in a positive way that trusts Americans to make the correct decisions about their future and not trust government to do it for them. People, individuals and families, make much better decisions about their daily lives than the government can for you. When Democrats come to the floor, their plan will be tax increases and trusting bigger government, bigger bureaucracy, more big, fancy, white buildings filled with bureaucrats to provide the compassion that they do not believe the American people will have for themselves. They have got to manufacture it through government and government bureaucracy; and that is the reason that we are here tonight, because that has not worked. Our government bureaucracy has let down the American people. We have got to reform those programs so they deliver a quality product, and we have to do it tonight, and we are the only ones to do it. There is no point in talking to the Democrats. They are all in lock-step going to vote ``no.'' They have decided tonight they are going to wait for the election for the American people. They are not going to do anything in the meantime except be negative. So we have got to do it. We have got to put the plan out. We have got to support it. We have got to provide the reforms, and we have to provide the savings so that we can reduce the deficit and get back to fiscal responsibility.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, but still no plan. But to close on our plan, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4241.

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 2005 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act. This status report is current through September 2, 2005. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95, the conference report on the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2005 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates. The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal years 2005 through 2009. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 with the total of ``section 302(b)'' suballocations among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures reported by the Appropriations Committee that would breach its section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority.

Mr. 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 September 2, 2005. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2006 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates. The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal years 2006 through 2010. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2006 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation as well as the 302(a) allocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2007 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills or amendments thereto that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the rule we are considering today commits a small but significant act of principle over convenience: In addition to providing for the consideration of the Foreign Relations bill, it firmly establishes the precedent that this House will not consider legislation on the floor if it exceeds the levels established by the budget resolution. This choice will not make us heroes; it will not win us accolades in The Washington Post. But it does show that we will stick to our budget disciplines, and I rise to commend Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee for this very important decision. By way of explanation: As originally reported by the Committee on International Affairs, the bill increases mandatory spending by $103 million over 5 years. Specifically, the bill as reported would allow the State Department to automatically spend leftover funds on other purposes without further legislative action. Traditionally these transfers are subject to appropriations. But the reported bill eliminated that requirement. As a result, the bill converted discretionary spending to mandatory at a time when we are trying to restrain mandatory spending. This increase in mandatory spending breaches the spending limit, or ``allocation,'' established for the IR Committee in the budget resolution. In technical terms, this violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which precludes the House from considering a bill that exceeds the 302(a) allocation of the committee that reported the bill. Now, the Rules Committee could have let this slide: The rule could simply have waived the Budget Act restriction, and let the authorizing committee fix the problem through a floor amendment. After all, many will say it wasn't really a large amount of money to worry about--and hardly anyone would have noticed anyway. While that step might have fixed the problem with this particular bill, it would have done it the wrong way. The principle underlying the congressional budget process is that we should not consider bills on this floor until they comply with spending limits established in the budget resolution. In other words, the burden is on the committee reporting the bill to comply with the budget before the measure reaches the floor. If compliance were left to a floor amendment or a subsequent point of order, it would cost budgetary commitment to the winds of the moment--which is no commitment at all. Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee have shown the appropriate kind of leadership: They have upheld this important principle of fiscal discipline. Once again, I commend Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee for enforcing the budget resolution and upholding the integrity of the budget process. We may not win any medals for this; we won't get to brag about it to Chris Matthews on Hardball. But this is the right thing to do, and that should be all the reason we need. This is an excellent rule and merits all of our support. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any provision of this resolution, amendment numbered 38 in House Report 109-175 shall not be in order. Sec. 3. That immediately upon disposition of H.R. 2601 the Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of a bill proposing to add a new section 1111 as contemplated in amendment numbered 38 in House Report 109- 175. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 4. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2005 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act. This status report is current through July 8, 2005. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95, the conference report on the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2005 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates. The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal years 2005 through 2009. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 with the total of ``section 302(b)'' suballocations among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures reported by the Appropriations Committee that would breach its section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority.

Mr. 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 July 8, 2005. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2006 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates. The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal years 2006 through 2010. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2006 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation as well as the 302(a) allocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2007 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills or amendments thereto that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, it is necessary to offset the cost of the Transitional Medical Assistance extension, TMA. It is my understanding that the gentleman from California has agreed to extend TMA for an additional 3 months as part of this welfare extension bill. It is my further understanding that the gentleman has agreed to include this provision, with the understanding that the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the TMA program, will bear the cost of this and any subsequent extensions. I yield to the gentleman from California to determine whether or not that is his understanding.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to continue this important program as he has in the past. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to further clarify how this TMA extension and future TMA extensions will be handled by the House. Is it the gentleman's understanding that the TMA extension and future TMA extensions will be paid for with offsets under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that are in excess of the savings required under the budget resolution? I yield to the distinguished chairman to find out if that is his understanding.

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

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, not since 1988--more than a decade and a half ago--has the Appropriations Committee passed all its bills out of the House before the Fourth of July. This year the committee stands poised to do so--even though its subcommittees have been restructured, and it is the first year at the helm for the Committee's new Chairman, the gentleman from San Bernardino County. I applaud the Committee and the Chairman for the deliberate pace they have maintained. The appropriations measure before us today provides funding for Transportation, Treasury, and Housing, as well as the Federal Judiciary and the District of Columbia. Under the reorganized subcommittee structure, this bill represents the first time Housing is matched with Transportation and Treasury in the same appropriations bill. I am pleased to report the bill is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House Concurrent Resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, which Congress adopted as its fiscal blueprint on April 28th. the budget resolution H.R. 3058 provides $115.2 billion in discretionary budgetary resources. This is a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2005. Even so, the bill is consistent with the allocation to the subcommittee, and therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays. The bill does not contain any emergency spending. To meet their 302(b) limit, the bill rescinds $549 in mandatory contract authority previously provided to the FAA. The bill also rescinds $2.497 billion of previously enacted discretionary budget authority, all but $4 million of the discretionary rescissions come from the Public and Indian Housing certificate fund. The bill also complies with the provisions in the budget resolution concerning advance appropriations. The bill includes $4.273 billion in such appropriations, all of them in accounts the budget resolution lists as eligible for advances. The House should be aware, however, these provisions--along with the $18.885 billion in advances already passed in the Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill--reach the ceiling of $23.158 billion in total advance appropriations provided for in the budget resolution. Any further increase in advance appropriations would breach this limit and subject such legislation to a point of order. programmatic provisions The Department of Transportation is funded at $61.959 billion, $4,457 above the request. This includes $36.3 billion for Federal Aid-Highways and $14.4 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration. Treasury is funded at $11.6 billion, $358 million above 2005. Most of these funds-- $10.5 billion--go to the IRS. The Federal Judiciary is funded at $5.4 billion, which represents a $326 million (6 percent) increase over 2005. The District of Columbia Federal payments are $603 million, $48 million above 2005 and $30 million above the President's request. The bill addresses our critical housing needs by funding the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] at $33.5 billion, $544 million above the 2005 level. The bill does not reflect the administration's proposal to move Community Development Block Grants [CDBGs] to the Commerce Department, instead keeping the program at HUD. Also, funding for Section 8 programs is split into two accounts to provide for better accountability and oversight. conclusion Again, I commend the Chairman for balancing difficult priorities and delivering a bill within our agreed upon budget constraints. I express my support for H.R. 3058.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, which funds programs and activities carried out by the Departments of State, Treasury and Agriculture, the United States Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Export-Import Bank, among others. This measure is the tenth appropriations bill to be considered under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, and provides for the foreign operations and export financing needs of our nation, clearly national priorities in a time of war. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established by the conference report to H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. H.R. 3057 provides $20.3 billion in appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs for fiscal year 2006. The bill provides $571 million in funding above fiscal year 2005, but it is $2.6 billion below the President's request. The bill provides $1.25 billion less then requested for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, $478 million less in Economic Support Funds and $146 million less in Foreign Military Financing funding. In addition, the bill recommends no funding for Iraq--a reduction of $459 million--as over $5 billion in funds previously appropriated for Iraq relief and reconstruction remain unobligated and could be used to fund the requirements presented in the fiscal year 2006 request. H.R. 3057 also provides no funding for the World Bank's Global Environment Facility until it adopts a performance-based allocation system--a reduction of $107 million from fiscal year 2005. H.R. 3057 provides a record level of $2.7 billion in funding to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria: $131 million more than requested by the President land $502 million, or 23 percent, more than provided in fiscal year 2005. Of this total, $2.3 billion is provided specifically for HIV/AIDS programs. The bill also fully funds the President's request of $2.5 billion in assistance for Israel, $1.8 billion in assistance for Egypt, $1 billion in assistance to support reconstruction and democratization activities in Afghanistan. In addition, $437 million in funding is provided for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement, an increase of $111 million, or 34 percent, over fiscal year 2005. H.R. 3057 does not contain any emergency-designated budget authority or advance appropriations, but it does include a rescission of $64 million in previously enacted discretionary budget authority. With total fiscal year 2006 appropriations equal to its allocation, the bill conforms with the budget resolution. Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution. In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 3057.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the sesquicentennial celebration of Clinton, Iowa--a community I am very proud to represent in Congress. One hundred and fifty summers ago, the Iowa Land Company purchased the site of the town and named it in honor of DeWitt Clinton, a former New York governor. A number of energetic entrepreneurs worked hard to help fuel Clinton's early growth. They rooted the city along the banks of the beautiful Mississippi River; and when a railroad bridge crossing the river was completed a few years after the town was established, the lumber industry boomed. Logs were floated down the river from Minnesota and Wisconsin to Clinton's sawmills and distributed along the river to other flourishing communities. Clinton was known as the sawmill capital of the country from the late 1850s to around 1900. The huge log flotillas on the river of Clinton's early days must have been an impressive sight. If you visit Clinton's Eagle Point Park today in the same area, you might see families enjoying a picnic or barges carrying Iowa's bounty down the mighty Mississippi. Today, Clinton remains full of industrious people determined to make the most of their community's strengths. Clinton's leaders are looking forward to creating even more opportunities for local workers. And every time I meet with a group of Clinton residents, I am always impressed with their incredible enthusiasm and pride in their community. In another 150 years from now, I am sure Clinton will still be home to the same brand of wonderful people, living in a vibrant, active city by the river. Happy birthday, Clinton!