Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just respond and say it is fascinating. It is fascinating how we got into this situation. And if you heard the gentleman who just spoke, if you wondered whether or not he maybe had been reading the newspaper and may be forgetting all of the things that have been happening to our country over the last going on 4 years, you might wonder if anyone has been paying attention, because he is correct. On September 10, 2001, we were running a surplus. There is no question that that was a good thing, something was very positive about that. But, unfortunately, we learned the very next morning that we had a homeland security deficit, that we had a national defense deficit. Our economy was already in a recession, and we found out we had an economic growth deficit. So even though there was more cash in the Federal Treasury than we were using, and you can call that a surplus, that did not mean we were meeting the needs of our country. There were many other challenges that we had to meet, and that next morning we found out. And all of the votes, all of the spending votes, I will go back to the record, all of the spending votes that the gentleman was just talking about under our management, the gentleman from Illinois voted for; voting for our troops, voting for homeland security, voting for education. I will go back to each one of those appropriations bills and the gentleman from Illinois voted for each one of those. The only one he does not like, if you take away all of the clutter, is he wants to increase taxes. He did not like that part. But all of the spending he voted for. So, let us just boil it down: There are people who want to increase taxes, and that is fine, and there are people who want to control spending, and that is also fine. But it is not all of this mismanagement. People say Republicans did all of this mismanagement. I think Osama bin Laden had a lot more to do with where we are today with the deficit than anybody else, than anybody else. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of me taking this time was just to remind everybody that it was not just Republicans that were here voting for those things, and there were probably a lot of reasons why we got into this situation that had nothing to do with Jim Nussle or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). It probably had more to do with Osama bin Laden than just about anybody else. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman yields time, if I might yield 5 minutes to a Member, and then I would also be willing to contribute a little bit of time to the debate here. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to just respond gently, firmly in some respects to some of the characterizations I disagree with of the budget that I am presenting and the Republicans are presenting. I definitely respect the Congressional Black Caucus in their effort to put together a budget. I admire anybody who tries to go through this process and comes out of the other end with an actual work product that they can come to the floor to defend. So, as a result of that, I am pleased to yield time so that they can present that budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) so that we can continue this discussion.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, first let me say to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), there is absolutely no one on the Democratic side that I admire more than the gentleman and the partnership we have in working on these budgets. This is the culmination when we come to the floor and have these debates, and I really respect the way he handled the debate. We appreciate that. We disagree how we are going to accomplish the goals that our Nation needs to set, but we know the goals are pretty important. We have to keep the country strong. There is no question about that. It is really nonnegotiable. There is not a constituent I talk to that would suggest at this point in time in our history we do not want to protect the country. Our borders, everything from terrorism to illegals and drugs and all sorts of things coming into the country, we have to protect the country, number one. Number two, we have to make sure that the economy keeps growing. That should not be an item up for negotiation. It is so important that families have the resources to deal with the challenges that they face every single day. We come out here and talk about other people's money very easily on the floor of the House, what the taxpayers send us in order to solve problems; but we really do need to be mindful of the fact that the most important budget that we ought to be focused on is the budget decided and discussed and sweated over and argued about around kitchen tables across the country. That is such an important budget. We worry about education here, but parents do that every night after their kids go to bed. We worry about health care here, but seniors do that every night when they are laying in a bed in a nursing home. We worry about creating jobs, but small business people do that every night in the quiet of their closed shop. They try and make sure their cash register all added up. It is funny, I have heard people say we should not worry about the error rate in the food stamp program, which is now 6 percent. Mr. Chairman, 6 cents on every dollar in this country in food stamps is wasted. We say that is an improvement because it is down from 19 percent. The interesting and fascinating thing about that is if a small business person ended the night, closed that shop door and turned the open sign around to closed and rang up the cash register and they were missing six pennies, they would stay all night to find it, all night long to find those six pennies that did not add up in their cash register. But we say, oh, that is an improvement. Amazing. It really is amazing. That is what I turn to first. This is the record of Federal Government spending over the last 10 years. In these numbers is what I was talking about, the concern of education, the concern of homeland security, the concern of national defense, the concern of job training, the concern of our environment, the concern of transportation, the concern of research and development. All of the concerns that we have talked about are embodied in numbers because in Washington we define compassion from one year to the next, solutions from one year to the next of spending more. We have all seen that. If I spend just a little bit more from one year to the next year, I must care, I must be solving problems, I must be dealing with real solutions. If I just spend a little bit more money, I will solve all of the problems in the country. Every problem that every family ever addressed around their kitchen table can be solved with just a little bit more Washington spending. That is the fallacy of what we are debating tonight, and that is that if we believe, truly believe that all we have to do is take more money to Washington in the form of taxes and define and design and develop just one or two more programs that hires a number of more bureaucrats, that builds maybe a few more office buildings to be filled with those bureaucrats, and they drive in from Virginia or Maryland or wherever they drive in from, so that they care more about what is going on than the families back home, if we really believe that is solving problems, then Members are going to have a budget to vote for. It spends more money, it increases taxes, and it purports to solve problems. Unfortunately, we are not solving those problems by doing that. My favorite saying that I heard on the floor, and I do not remember who said it, a long time ago, if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got. If Members think about it, we have been trying to solve problems in Washington with more spending for quite some time now, and those problems do not seem to go away. Last year we decided to put the brakes on spending. We said yes, we have had the excuse of September 11, of the war on terror, of needing to deal with homeland security and needing to deal with our economy; but it is time to be done with all of that. And so what we did was we said let us put the brakes on spending just a little bit. What happened? When the economy grows and when we control spending, just like the Republican budgets in the late 1990s when we got back to balance, and President Clinton can take credit for anything he wants, that is fine. But everyone who has studied government knows that the buck stops here when it comes to spending. When it comes to fiscal responsibility and article I of the Constitution, we are the ones in charge of the budget. Members know that. As a result, last year with fiscal discipline and a growing economy, we were able to reduce the deficit 20 percent in 1 year. That is good news, but we need to build on that. What our budget does is it says, let us continue to build on that success every year with more and more deficit reduction. That is what we accomplish with the spending discipline within this budget. We say not only should we hold the line on discretionary spending, that is the spending we will argue about every day out here during the appropriations process. We want to actually reduce some spending there. We want to have the first reduction in non-security spending since Ronald Reagan was in town back in 1980. That is good news. We also know that we have to start tackling what we call the mandatory spending, or the automatic spending. And so we accomplish that because we know that mandatory spending, that is this yellow part, the part here that back in 1995 was half the budget and now is more than half the budget and is growing to even more than half the budget, almost two-thirds of the budget if we do not start controlling our spending in these accounts. I want to give you an example of what we would have to do. As much as there will be all sorts of discussion today, and there has been, and tomorrow about Medicaid, you cannot find the word Medicaid in the budget. The reason is because what we do is we say the committees of jurisdiction, in this instance the Committee on Energy and Commerce, should be given responsibility to look through the programs and see if they cannot only find savings but reform the program, to do a better job of delivering the product to the people who need it. If it is true that people sit up at night worrying about how they are going to pay their bills, how they are going to meet their health care needs, then let us help them figure that out. But let us not continue to do a program that every single Governor would admit is unsustainable. We have got quotes from here to the end of the day from Governors who have written us that have said, This program cannot continue. It cannot continue. All right. So what do we have? We have one budget on the Democratic side. We actually, I think, will have two or three budgets on the Democratic side that do nothing with regard to Medicaid. No reforms. No changes. Let us continue to always do what we have always done, and that is continue what has been what some people say is fraudulent transfers that are going on at the State level, where Governors and State legislators are put in a position where they actually have to figure out how to game the system, how to manipulate the system so that they can get more money from the Federal Government. I have heard of situations that colleagues of mine have told me from around the country where we actually have a situation where kids, teenagers who are eligible for foster care, good kids, good teenagers, that are difficult to find families for so that they can integrate and become part of a family again, but the State, a couple of States in particular, what they have done is they have devised a way to lock those kids into mental health residential treatment centers. Why? So they can get more money from the Federal Government. If you are a foster parent or you are someone who is thinking about adopting, opening up your heart, your family, your home to a child, to a kid, to a teenager and giving them a life, try doing that with a stigma of having mental health problems, of having challenges in that regard, because of the stigma of being part of that State program, not because they were helping the kid but because they wanted more money. We are hurting people with some of these programs. I realize if you measure your compassion from one year to the next with spending, I cared at $92 billion this year. Oops, there I went and I cared a little bit more that year. Then I cared at $101 billion. Then I really cared at $108 billion. Boy, my caring and compassion is going up. That is not how we should measure it. We should measure it on results. Are these programs working? Are they helping families? Are they helping kids? Are they helping communities? Are they solving the problem that Medicaid ought to be solving for people with long-term health care concerns, people with disabilities, people who require indigent care? That is what we ought to be asking. What do we do in this budget? We say, Commerce Committee, go to work. Invite the Governors to come to Washington to give us their proposal. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I sat in a room with Governors where they said, ``Don't arbitrarily let the number drive the policy.'' That is exactly right. The number should not drive policy. This number should not drive policy any more than it ought to determine compassion. But there is only one way to get the Governors to come back to Washington. They were here the first time. The only way to get them back the second time is to have a process that requires reform and that is exactly what this budget does. It says, by September, we want you to come back with ideas for reform. Just as a result of this, they have committed to come back by June with a reform proposal that the Governors are going to offer that we can work together with the administration to try and come to a solution and try to come to some agreement on. That is a positive step forward. That helps us with a program that most people think is unsustainable and that helps us solve the problem of making sure that this goes to people who cannot help themselves. What does the so-called reduction in growth look like? We have heard all the complaints on the floor today. One would think we were just eliminating the Medicaid program. I want to show you the chart of what this looks like after we are all done. This is what the Governors would complain about. This is what some of the advocates are complaining about. In other words, we are asking for just a little sliver, just slow down the growth. But it is growing every year. Every year it grows. We are just asking for a little bit of change, just a little bit of reform, make the program work better, less it help seniors, let it help people with disabilities, make sure it is solving the problem for families that do not have the resources to meet their health care needs. Let us also instill some personal responsibility. Do not just hand it out and give people first dollar Cadillac coverage without saying in return, Folks, you have got to be healthier, you have got to practice prevention, you have got to be personally responsible. That is what reform can give you and a budget without that reform will not give you. I understand that between today and tomorrow we have got a big decision to make. The decision as it boils down to me is very simple. If you believe that taxing a little bit more, taking a little bit more out to Washington from all of these hardworking families across the country and hiring more bureaucrats and inventing more programs and trying to solve more of these problems from Washington, if you believe that is the solution, you need to vote for the Spratt budget. You need to vote for the Democrat alternative budget because that is what it does. It says increase taxes, increase spending and you will begin to solve these problems. But there is an alternative and it is the majority. What the majority is saying, Stop the madness. It is the spending. We have got to get the spending under control. We know the other body left to their own devices may not do it on their own. We have already seen in a kind of a disappointing way that they have not really stepped up the way the President has and how we believe the way I have. In closing, let me just say that we will be able to give, I believe, our kids and our grandkids the opportunity of a debt-free world if we begin with a small step again this year. I ask Members to support the majority budget.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will vote against this budget, and let me say why. It is because of my responsibility and duty to protect the base bill, the base resolution, the product that was worked and crafted in a very genuine way through the committee process, one that has the support of our majority, one that has the support of our leadership, one that has the support of our chairman, and one that I dare say has, and I believe has, the support of my friends who bring forth the budget resolution tonight. As I said before when the Congressional Black Caucus came forth, anyone who has the guts to come out here with their own budget I have to applaud. I may oppose it, but I have to applaud it because I know what it takes to put together a budget. Whether the alternative budget has one person who supports it or 80 Members or 218 Members to support it, I commend the coalition for coming forth with their budget. I said the same to the Congressional Black Caucus because they have done this in a very responsible way every year I have been in Congress and for many year before. I really mean that. Anyone who is willing to put the sweat equity into it gets my admiration. I reluctantly oppose this alternative because if given the opportunity to have a perfect world could we, should we work for more spending control? Yes, there is no question. For all of the haranguing that happens out here about the cuts, we know there are a lot more weeds in the garden we could pull; we know there is more reform that we could drive. We know we could work harder and probably find more spending to control. We have some practicalities, however. One is we have some committees that have to do the work of achieving those reforms. I have worked with each one of those committees and the committee chairmen to arrange the agreements which bring the base resolution here today; and I respect that process, and I will support that process. In addition, we have a President who is for really I think the first time since I have been in Congress willing to step up during a very challenging time in our Nation's history when we are at war and say even though it would be easy to use the war as an excuse and not worry about what is happening on the domestic side, the President of the United States has said we are going to control spending, work on the entitlement programs, and try to reform the programs and to meet the needs out there. The fact that the RSC comes forward with a budget that goes a little further, as I say, I respect that; but I do not think that we are going to get the support behind it that we need in order to get it done. At the end of the day, that is what we need. We need the budget to pass so we have something to enforce. I want to speak to that briefly because as congressional watchers may have seen or misinterpreted, the intramural discussion that went on and fighting that may have seemed to be happening between friends and colleagues, I interpret what the RSC was doing, the Republican Study Committee was doing with regard to enforcement to be the exact right attitude to have. That is if you are going to do the work of having a budget, then let us enforce it. The good news from my standpoint is last year when we were not able to get a budget through both bodies, the House took the version we passed, we deemed it, and we enforced it. We stuck to it. At the final analysis of the Congressional Budget Office when all of the smoke cleared and they finally were able to close all of the books, you know what we blew that budget by, a $2.4 trillion budget, and we missed it by $400 million. Now Members could say we missed it, but I would say for not having a budget in both the House and Senate and not having the budget being the force of law with the President, I would say that is a pretty good track record and one that I give a lot of credit to our Speaker, in particular, for having accomplished. I give them much credit not only on the work product of coming forward with a budget, but also their desire to enforce it. I stand ready to work shoulder to shoulder and side by side with them as we not only get that budget done, but enforce the budget the rest of the year. I commend them on their work product, and I reluctantly will vote against their budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with clause 2(a) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record the Rules of the Committee on the Budget for the 109th Congress. These rules were adopted by the Committee on the Budget by voice vote at an organizational meeting held by the Committee on February 2, 2005. If there are any questions on the Committee Rules, please contact Paul Restuccia, Chief Counsel of the Budget Committee, at 6-7270. Rules of the Committee on the Budget General Applicability Rule 1--Applicability of House Rules Except as otherwise specified herein, the Rules of the House are the rules of the committee so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day is a motion of high privilege. Meetings Rule 2--Regular meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the committee shall be the second Wednesday of each month at 11 a.m., while the House is in session. (b) The Chairman is authorized to dispense with a regular meeting when the Chairman determines there is no business to be considered by the committee. The Chairman shall give written notice to that effect to each member of the committee as far in advance of the regular meeting day as the circumstances permit. (c) Regular meetings shall be canceled when they conflict with meetings of either party's caucus or conference. Rule 3--Additional and special meetings (a) The Chairman may call and convene additional meetings of the committee as the Chairman considers necessary, or special meetings at the request of a majority of the members of the committee in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(c). (b) In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Chairman shall provide written notice of additional meetings to the office of each member at least 24 hours in advance while Congress is in session, and at least three days in advance when Congress is not in session. Rule 4--0pen business meetings (a) Each meeting for the transaction of committee business, including the markup of measures, shall be open to the public except when the committee, in open session and with a quorum present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(g)(1). (b) No person other than members of the committee and such congressional staff and departmental representatives as the committee may authorize shall be present at any business or markup session which has been closed to the public. Rule 5--Quorums A majority of the committee shall constitute a quorum. No business shall be transacted and no measure or recommendation shall be reported unless a quorum is actually present. Rule 6--Recognition Any member, when recognized by the Chairman, may address the committee on any bill, motion, or other matter under consideration before the committee. The time of such member shall be limited to five minutes until all members present have been afforded an opportunity to comment. Rule 7--Consideration of business Measures or matters may be placed before the committee, for its consideration, by the Chairman or by a majority vote of the members of the committee, a quorum being present. Rule 8--Availability of legislation The committee shall consider no bill, joint resolution, or concurrent resolution unless copies of the measure have been made available to all committee members at least four hours prior to the time at which such measure is to be considered. When considering concurrent resolutions on the budget, this requirement shall be satisfied by making available copies of the complete Chairman's mark (or such material as will provide the basis for committee consideration). The provisions of this rule may be suspended with the concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. Rule 9--Procedure for consideration of budget resolution (a) It shall be the policy of the committee that the starting point for any deliberations on a concurrent resolution on the budget should be the estimated or actual levels for the fiscal year preceding the budget year. (b) In the consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, the committee shall first proceed, unless otherwise determined by the committee, to consider budget aggregates, functional categories, and other appropriate matters on a tentative basis, with the document before the committee open to amendment. Subsequent amendments may be offered to aggregates, functional categories, or other appropriate matters, which have already been amended in their entirety. (c) Following adoption of the aggregates, functional categories, and other matters, the text of a concurrent resolution on the budget incorporating such aggregates, functional categories, and other appropriate matters shall be considered for amendment and a final vote. Rule 10--Roll call votes A roll call of the members may be had upon the request of at least one-fifth of those present. In the apparent absence of a quorum, a roll call may be had on the request of any member.

Mr. 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 5-year period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 (S. Con. Res. 95, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 5). This status report is current through January 21, 2005. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by S. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2005 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under S. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal years 2005 through 2009. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2006 of accounts for advance appropriations under section 401 S. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the circle and legacy of service to the United States continues every year without end here in Congress. Members of Congress and our professional staff arrive and depart, and because that departure may seem to go without notice, those who depart may wonder whether their service has in fact made a difference, and in some manner secured the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. I cannot bear witness to all that I have encountered in this circle of service, but, I will try for the departure of one very special friend. Richard E. Meade has served me, the Congress, and the United States of America professionally, effectively, and unselfishly for over fifteen years. He has served me as my Chief of Staff for both my Iowa Congressional office and the House Budget Committee. During his tenure, his professional approach was one identified with integrity of purpose, quality of work product, and sincerity and honesty to every person he encountered, from the Speaker of the House to a citizen from Iowa. One of the many beauties of America is that our freedom is more precious and important than any one person, and yet, without that ``mere person'' who is willing to serve freedom, respect freedom, and defend freedom, freedom could not exist. Richard E. Meade is such a person who during his life has been willing to serve, respect and defend American freedom, and in doing so, has helped secure the blessings of liberty for all of us, and for his lovely wife Elizabeth and their precious daughter Constance. Soon, memories of that service, like the memories of the service of so many others, may fade, and good people will step forward and continue in the legacy of quality service to the freedom we have all come to expect and too often take for granted. The circle of service continues. My humble words of appreciation cannot, and will not, equal the quality and quantity of service you provided me and our country, but Rich, I offer them with my ultimate respect and sincere gratitude for your many years of dedication to me and our liberty. Mr. Speaker, I simply say, Rich Meade, thank you for my freedom!

Mr. 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 and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 (S. Con. Res. 95, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 649). This status report is current through November 15, 2004. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by S. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2005 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under S. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal years 2005 through 2009. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under the section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2006 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of S. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5006, the Labor/ HHS Appropriations Bill for FY 2005, and to inform members that this bill is in compliance with the budget resolution for FY 2005 as applied to the House by H. Res. 649. H.R. 5006 provides $142.5 billion in new budget authority and $141.1 billion in new outlays for programs within the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. This funding level represents an increase of $2.8 billion in BA and $3.9 billion in outlays over last year. That is a 2 percent increase over FY 2004 levels. This reflects the need to restrain the rate of increase for non-defense, non-homeland security domestic discretionary programs which provided the overall policy framework for this year's budget resolution. H.R. 5006 complies with the budget act because the spending levels it contains do not exceed the subcommittee's 302(b) suballocation of new budget authority. Additionally, the bill is in compliance with requirements that it not exceed aggregate spending levels established in the budget resolution. Finally, the bill also complies with restrictions on advance appropriations. Regarding this last point, the Budget Resolution for FY 2005 places a total limit for advance appropriations in FY 2006 at $23.2 billion. The bill before us today will consume the vast majority of those funds, since it provides for $19.275 billion in FY 2006 advance appropriations. All of the accounts for which advance appropriations are made in this bill are listed as eligible within the budget resolution. Since no advance appropriations have as yet been enacted, the bill does not cause a breach of this limit. However, the House should be aware that only $4 billion will remain available for advance appropriations should this bill be enacted. I commend the Committee on Appropriations for bringing us a bill that funds many priority programs which Members care about while living within our means in an era requiring tougher fiscal discipline. The bill increases Department of Education funding by $2 billion over last year, and includes a billion dollar increase for Special Education, bringing funding for IDEA to its highest level in history. This is over three times more funding than Special Education received in 1995, and this is an accomplishment that we in the Budget Committee have helped to bring about through past budget resolutions which assumed substantial increases for special education. Additionally, the bill continues the commitment that the House has made to the National Institutes for Health, providing $727 million more than last year. Worker retraining and dislocated worker assistance programs are also restored and augmented, which should help us continue to expand employment and ensure that Americans who want to work will be able to find good jobs. This is a responsible bill which fulfills our commitments to the public while living within the constraints of difficult fiscal times.

Mr. 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 and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 (S. Con. Res. 95), which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 649. This status report is current through September 6, 2004. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by S. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2005 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under S. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal years 2005 through 2009. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2006 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of S. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) Not identified in the statement of managers; or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to have the opportunity to respond very briefly to the gentleman from Texas. First and foremost, he is a member of the Committee on the Budget. He has been working on this a long time, as many Members have. There are some challenges we are going to have to overcome, there is no question. I understand that there is some skepticism about the bill that was passed yesterday, but I would hope that the other body would recognize the fact that a bill that was passed with the unanimous support of the House of Representatives could be expedited and that we could send a very clear signal to our men and women in uniform as well as their families that are looking for housing, that are having to deal with in many instances, as the gentleman knows far better than I, substandard housing, that we could deal with this in a very expeditious manner, the way we did yesterday, in an appropriate way, in a legislative way, not in an extraordinary way. I would hope that the other body would take this up as quickly and as expeditiously as the House of Representatives did. We can accomplish that. We can do it in a bipartisan way as it was done yesterday. And it can be on the President's desk in moments, without further action, without further ado, without having to make them wait or wonder. The military construction bill that we are considering right now, its future, we could argue, is also uncertain, given the fact that just about every prognosticator of the appropriations process suggests that we will not be completing the appropriations process on time this year, either as 13 individual appropriation bills or even as an omnibus bill but that, in fact, we may have to live under a continuing resolution for some time. So while there is uncertainty about military construction and other appropriation matters, there should not have to be concern or question about our military families and what needs to be done as quickly as possible. It can be done expeditiously. It can be done using the vehicle that was passed yesterday by an overwhelming margin. I would hope that other Members will not try any further delaying tactics for our men and women in uniform. I would hope that we can pass that bill as quickly as possible in the other body, that it will not be delayed, that it would enjoy the same kind of bipartisan support that we have here.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, obviously I support the gentleman's opposition to the motion. Let me just point out as well in support of his opposition that not only would it delay the military construction bill by sending it back to committee, because of the fact that we are going on recess as an example, it would postpone a decision about this because the gentleman, interestingly enough, complained about a technicality earlier. There is a technicality in this motion that Members need to be aware about. It is the words ``promptly,'' and ``promptly'' means when we get around to it a little bit later, not forthwith, which means right away. What we did yesterday is more than promptly. It happened yesterday. It is over in the Senate. They can take advantage of that opportunity and pass that bill immediately, not in some form later on. So I appreciate the gentleman's opposing this method even though I know his heart may not be in it as much as mine has to be in this instance.

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