[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5092-5105]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 154 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 95.

                              {time}  1016


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the 
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 
2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2005, and 
setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 
through 2010, with Mr. Shaw (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, March 16, 2005, a request for a recorded vote on amendment 
No. 2 printed in House Report 109-19, offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), had been postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 109-19.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Obey:
       In section 101 (relating to recommended levels and amounts 
     for the budget year):
       (1) In paragraph (4) (relating to the deficit), the amount 
     of the deficit for fiscal year 2006 shall be reduced by 
     $10,091,000,000.
       (2) In paragraph (1) (relating to Federal revenues), the 
     recommended level of Federal revenues for fiscal year 2006 
     shall be increased by $18,073,000,000 and the amount by which 
     the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be changed 
     shall be increased by $18,073,000,000.
       (3) In paragraph (2) (relating to new budget authority), 
     the appropriate level of total new budget authority for 
     fiscal year 2006 shall be increased by $15,800,000,000.
       (4) In paragraph (3) (relating to budget outlays), the 
     appropriate level of total budget outlays for fiscal year 
     2006 shall be increased by $7,982,000,000.
       In section 102, for fiscal year 2006:
       (1) In paragraph (1) (relating to National Defense (050)), 
     the amount of new budget authority shall be reduced by 
     $1,000,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall be reduced by 
     $678,000,000.
       (2) In paragraph (2) (relating to International Affairs 
     (150)), the amount of new budget authority shall be reduced 
     by $423,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall be reduced by 
     $193,000,000.
       (3) In paragraph (3) (relating to General Science, Space 
     and Technology (250)), the amount of new budget authority 
     shall be increased by $300,000,000 and the amount of outlays 
     shall be increased by $150,000,000, to fund basic research 
     and development to allow American workers to compete in the 
     international economy.
       (4) In paragraph (5) (relating to Natural Resources and 
     Environment (300)), the amount of new budget authority shall 
     be increased by $100,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall 
     be increased by $63,000,000, to provide clean water and open 
     spaces for future generations.
       (5) In paragraph (6) (relating to Agriculture (350)), the 
     amount of new budget authority shall be increased by 
     $540,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall be increased by 
     $446,000,000, to improve economic opportunities, 
     infrastructure, and the quality of life for rural Americans.
       (6) In paragraph (8) (relating to Transportation (400)), 
     the amount of new budget authority shall be increased by 
     $600,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall be increased by 
     $460,000,000, to improve infrastructure development.
       (7) In paragraph (10) (relating to Education, Training, 
     Employment, and Social Services (500)), the amount of new 
     budget authority shall be increased by $8,050,000,000 and the 
     amount of outlays shall be increased by $2,977,000,000, to 
     create opportunities for our children and young adults, and 
     to address the needs of low-income communities and assist the 
     long-term unemployed.
       (8) In paragraph (11) (relating to Health (550)), the 
     amount of new budget authority shall be increased by 
     $1,950,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall be increased 
     by $723,000,000, to provide health care for children and 
     others in need, control infectious diseases, foster medical 
     research, and alleviate shortages of nurses and other health 
     professionals.
       (9) In paragraph (13) (relating to Income Security (600)), 
     the amounts of new budget authority shall be increased by 
     $1,091,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall be increased 
     by $695,000,000, to help provide housing and energy 
     assistance to the poor and alleviate the impact of refugees 
     on State and local communities.
       (10) In paragraph (15) (relating to Veterans Benefits and 
     Services (700)), the amounts of new budget authority shall be 
     increased by $2,903,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall 
     be increased by $2,447,000,000, to maintain quality health 
     care for veterans.
       (11) In paragraph (17) (relating to General Government 
     (800)), the amounts of new budget authority shall be 
     decreased by $56,000,000 and the amount of outlays shall be 
     decreased by $44,000,000, which shall include the following 
     changes:
       (A) Increase new budget authority by $200,000,000 and 
     outlays by $155,000,000, to ensure corporate responsibility.
       (B) Reduce new budget authority by $256,000,000 and outlays 
     by $199,000,000.
       (12) To improve our hometown response capabilities, 
     strengthen our borders and ports, and meet our security 
     mandates, amounts of new budget authority and outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 shall be further modified as follows:
       (A) In paragraph (9) (relating to community and regional 
     development (450)), increase new budget authority by 
     $660,000,000 and outlays by $121,000,000.
       (B) In paragraph (16) (relating to Administration of 
     Justice (750)), increase new budget authority by $935,000,000 
     and outlays by $759,000,000.
       (C) In paragraph (11) (relating to Health (550)), increase 
     new budget authority by $150,000,000 and outlays by 
     $56,000,000.
       In section 201(b) (relating to reconciliation in the House 
     of Representatives), insert ``(1)'' after ``(b)'' and add at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       (2) Reduction in tax cuts for taxpayers with incomes above 
     $1,000,000.--The Committee on Ways and Means shall also 
     include in the reconciliation bill reported pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) changes in tax laws sufficient to increase 
     revenues by $25,818,000,000, to be achieved by reducing or 
     offsetting the tax reductions received during 2006 by 
     taxpayers with adjusted gross income above $1,000,000 for 
     taxpayers filing joint returns and comparable amounts for 
     taxpayers with other filing statuses as a result of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and 
     the Jobs and Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
     2003.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 154, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will enable the House to choose between 
the social Darwinism of the President's budget and a different budget 
which more accurately reflects the message of the social gospel.
  If we take a look at what the President has done, he inherited a $240 
billion surplus when he came into office, and yet the budget he 
presents to the Congress today contains a $290 billion deficit. That 
deficit does not include the $80 billion that we spent yesterday on the 
war on Iraq. It does not include the $2 trillion it is estimated will 
be the cost of borrowing to pay for the personal or private accounts 
that the President wants to use to blow up Social Security. It does not 
include dollar one of the $1.2 trillion it is estimated that it will 
cost to make the President's previously passed tax cuts permanent. So 
we have a huge deficit as far as the eye can see, under the President's 
budget.

[[Page 5093]]

  Then the President tries to reclaim the mantle of fiscal 
responsibility by making some well-publicized cuts in the domestic 
discretionary portion of the budget. In plain terms, that is the 
appropriated part of the budget that goes for programs like education, 
health care, science, veterans benefits, things like that.
  The President's cuts in the domestic arena do not lay a glove on the 
deficit because the deficit is so large; but I would point out, for 
instance, that those cuts average only about 5 percent of the over $200 
billion cost in this year's budget alone of the President's tax cuts. 
They are less than 20 percent of the over-$50 billion in costs, for the 
cost of the supersize tax cuts that the President has given to the top 
1 percent of earners in this country. But those cuts are large enough, 
Mr. Chairman, to do great damage over time in the investments that we 
need to make in education, health care, science, veterans, community 
infrastructure and the like.
  In real terms, those cuts amount, after you adjust for inflation, to 
about $16 billion; and if you further adjust them for population 
growth, that is a real reduction in services of about $19 billion for 
those programs.
  So this amendment does basically three things. It cuts $5 million 
from some of the President's proposed initiatives, and it combines 
those cuts with savings on the tax front. What we do on the tax front 
is to just simply recognize the essential injustice of the fact that 
right now folks who make more than $1 million in this country this year 
will on average get a $140,000 tax cut. This amendment would limit that 
$140,000 tax cut to about $27,000 and save enough money to devote $10 
billion to deficit reduction and to use the other $16 billion for the 
initiatives that we have outlined in the amendment in the area of 
education, health, science, veterans, homeland security, environment, 
law enforcement, and community development.
  Now, within that framework, we are able to add $2.4 billion to 
programs that can do real things to reduce the pressures for abortions. 
Among the critical investments made by this amendment are a cluster of 
programs that would make it economically easier for low-income and 
vulnerable women who choose to carry pregnancies to term by providing 
additional funding for maternal and infant health care, for child care 
and Head Start and after-school programs, for low-income housing 
assistance, for the community service block grant, to provide people 
with the opportunity to get help in the education and training areas, 
and also to provide additional medical services such as dental care. We 
also provide additional funding for child abuse and domestic violence 
prevention programs.
  Now, I would simply say that if our concern for life does not stop at 
the checkbook's edge, then these are initiatives which ought to be 
supported by everybody in this Chamber.
  The reason I offer this amendment is because over the last 30 years 
something really bad has happened in this country. Thirty years ago, we 
had the smallest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized 
country in the world. Today, we have the largest gap between the rich 
and the poor of any industrialized country.
  The wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country control 33 percent 
of the Nation's wealth. The poorest 40 percent are struggling to hang 
on to less than 3 percent of the Nation's wealth, and the President's 
budget makes it worse.
  That is why I say that this amendment helps us choose between the 
social Darwinism of the President's package and values that more 
accurately reflect the social gospel.
  Now, the opposition will say, ``Oh, we do not need these additional 
education dollars because we have had such a large increase in 
education the past 2 years!'' Let me point out the Republican majority 
has been dragged kicking and screaming into supporting those education 
increases.
  If Congress had approved House Republican Labor-H bills for education 
over the past 10 years, we would be spending $19 billion less on 
education than we are spending today. On title I, if House Republican 
bills had passed, we would have spent $2.8 billion less for title I 
grants to school districts than we are spending today. After-school 
centers, if the administration's budget request had been passed 
throughout the years, we would be providing $1 million less to local 
school districts for help in that program, and the list goes on and on.
  So I would ask, Mr. Chairman, do we really want to pay for $140,000 
tax cuts for the most well-off people in this society by providing real 
cuts in the number of grants that the National Institutes of Health 
will be able to finance research grants into cancer, diabetes, 
Parkinson's and the like? Do we really want to pay for $120,000 in tax 
cuts for the most well-off in this society by continuing to mount 
barriers that prevent people without means to get a college education 
for their kids?
  The College Board last year indicated that the average cost of 
attendance at a 4-year public university has increased by $2,300 over 
the past 4 years, biggest 4-year increase in history. The President's 
answer to that is to toss an extra hundred dollars on the table in the 
form of Pell grants, and then he pays for it by wiping out Perkins 
loans and a number of other education initiatives for those same 
people.
  I really think that the issue is very simple. All this amendment does 
is to prevent real reductions in the kinds of programs that I have just 
talked about. What it does is to restore our ability to at least keep 
up with inflation on those programs by saying to the most well-off 
people in this country, ``Sorry, folks, you are going to have to get 
along with a tax cut of only $27,000.'' Most of them I think would 
agree that this is a far more socially just and economically wise set 
of decisions to make than the budget resolution we have before us.
  This applies only for 1 year. We do not get into any games about 5-
year or 10-year budgets. This applies only for the next year. This is 
the priority statement which people will be able to make on 
appropriated portions of the budget for the coming year; and if they 
think these priorities are better, I hope they vote for the amendment. 
If they think they are not, then they have a perfect right to vote 
against it.
  I would urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise with great respect for the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations and in agreement, frankly, with his final 
comments about this, his alternative to our budget, laying out a 
different approach, a different set of priorities for this Nation, and 
that is the beauty of this deliberative body. Frankly, it was the 
beauty of the fairness of the rule I believe that was crafted that 
allowed four separate approaches, four separate sets of priorities in 
budgeting to be debated and considered on this House floor.
  But I must strongly oppose the Obey amendment. It authorizes higher, 
uncontrolled spending, while at the same time cutting national defense 
in a time when our soldiers and sailors and Marines and airmen and 
Guardsmen and Reservists are engaged all around the world, an 
unacceptable notion.
  In addition to cutting our spending on national defense, it raises 
taxes by an estimated $18 billion for the next fiscal year. It does 
increase education spending by $8 billion. It increases veterans 
spending and health care spending as well, but I would add that in a 
time when we are engaged in an unprecedented war on terror and waging a 
separate effort against growing budget deficits, that the level of 
growth laid out by the House Committee on the Budget's spending plan 
meets our national priorities, continues our commitment to veterans and 
education.

                              {time}  1030

  The Department of Education under the House budgets for the last 10 
years, the Department of Education's spending has gone up 146 percent 
over the last decade. It is hard to argue that is an inadequate rate of 
growth. Veterans spending continues to grow. Investments in IDEA, the 
Individuals with

[[Page 5094]]

Disabilities Education Act have gone up dramatically higher than in the 
previous 10 years under a different management of this House.
  This budget resolution that comes out of the House committee sets 
these priorities moving our Nation forward and protecting our homeland, 
investing in homeland security, investing in national defense and in 
our personnel who are in harm's way, and it maintains those policies of 
pro-growth that allows our economy to expand, that allows small 
businesses, medium businesses, and even large businesses to operate in 
a climate where they want to grow and hire employees and continue to 
open up new markets around the world, giving Americans new 
opportunities to move products and giving Americans the opportunity to 
achieve the American dream.
  Congress has addressed extraordinary spending demands in the last 
several years. They bring us face to face with the reality that it is 
an unsustainable rate of spending growth, one that must be slowed. Last 
year's projected deficit was $521 billion, but we ended the year with a 
deficit of $412 billion, reducing that deficit by 20 percent. Although 
that number is staggeringly high, admittedly, this House-passed budget, 
the committee-passed budget, puts us on track to cut that deficit in 
half in 5 years. In doing so it makes some tough decisions, which is 
what we are paid to do around here.
  It requires us to prioritize and make tradeoffs while ensuring that 
those highest priorities are fully funded and met, and in the House 
budget we identify that highest priority as being national security and 
homeland security. This amendment, the amendment we are debating today, 
cuts defense spending and we find that to be unacceptable in today's 
climate.
  The budget slows the growth of mandatory spending by 0.1 percent over 
5 years, from its current rate of 6.4 percent to 6.3 percent. I think 
that is an important fact. While we spend an awful lot of time in this 
Chamber talking about cuts, what we are doing is slowing the rate of 
growth. If someone were to offer workers a 6.3 percent pay raise, it 
would be a pretty good deal. The fact that these programs continue to 
grow at 6.3 rather than 6.4 percent is not throwing starving children 
into the streets. It is not taking food out of seniors' mouths. It is 
not wrecking our ability to be a compassionate and decent society, it 
is simply recognizing the simple fact that we cannot maintain the 
dramatic rates of growth we have been engaged in for the past decade 
and solve the deficit problem.
  This budget resolution continues to make homeland and national 
security major priorities. Since September 11, Congress has spent 
nearly $1.9 trillion to provide for defense and homeland security, not 
including supplementals. Like last year's budget, this plan takes into 
account funding for the ongoing war in Iraq. The resolution budgets $50 
billion to provide for the ongoing war against terrorism. The national 
defense budget continues the multiyear plan to enable our Armed 
Services both to fight the war against terrorism now and to transform 
itself to counter unconventional threats in the future. It fully 
accommodates the President's request for defense.
  Mr. Chairman, the last time we made any real effort to rein in 
spending, that piece of spending in our budget that makes up 55 percent 
of the budget, was in 1997. That 55 percent is what we call mandatory 
spending. I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is very 
familiar with this. As an appropriator, he has seen his share of the 
budget in discretionary shrink over time, and it will continue to 
without us making important reforms on the mandatory side of the 
ledger.
  This budget, again for the first time since 1997, instructs the 
authorizing committees, those committees with the greatest expertise in 
their areas of jurisdiction, through the reconciliation process to find 
$7.8 billion in savings for next year and $68.6 billion in savings over 
the next 5 years. What that means is we are putting the people who 
understand these policy areas best, we are putting them on the trail to 
find out the ways to help make those programs be the most effective and 
the most efficient. They know best the successes and failures in the 
myriad of government programs that are now on autopilot through the 
mandatory spending process.
  It is estimated that if mandatory spending grows at its current pace, 
by 2015 it will consume 62 percent of the Federal government. I think 
it is an important piece of our budget that we begin the process of 
mandatory spending reform. That reform happens through the 
reconciliation process.
  A number of the President's key initiatives supported in this budget 
include $40 billion for homeland security outside the Department of 
Defense; an additional $2.5 billion for Project BioShield to secure new 
vaccines against smallpox, anthrax and other deadly bioterrorist 
threats. These funds follow on the heels of massive increases over the 
past several years to make sure our Nation is prepared to deal with the 
terrorist threats we know are out there.
  I support our budget. It is an important, thoughtful, prioritized 
budget that makes some tough decisions. I appreciate the gentleman's 
right to offer an alternative vision. That is what this is. This is a 
clash of visions, a clash of priorities that our Nation faces. Do we 
grow our way out of the deficit by fostering a climate that encourages 
people to find work and start businesses and grow existing businesses, 
or do we take the approach that we should tax our way out of the 
deficits? Do we fund our priorities? And what are our highest 
priorities? Our approach is our highest priority in a time of war is 
national defense, and our high priority in a time of increased threats 
from terrorism is homeland security.
  We believe that it is important to follow the lead of other 
Presidents, other administrations, other Congresses that have found 
themselves budgeting in a time of war to make necessary trade-offs. The 
New Deal agencies when World War II came about did not continue to 
receive the same level of funding. In fact, it was President Roosevelt 
himself who curtailed and even eliminated a number of the agencies he 
created.
  We recognize in our budget that we cannot continue to spend on the 
domestic side as aggressively as we had at a time of peace when we are 
at war, and to that end we call for a 0.8 percent reduction in 
nonsecurity domestic discretionary spending. While it is an important 
first step and it has not been done since the Reagan administration, it 
will hardly cause starvation and pandemonium in the streets at a 0.8 
percent reduction. Nor will the directed reconciliation process to the 
authorizing committees do the same.
  We make some tough choices. We admit that. We lay out our priorities, 
and we proudly defend them. And those priorities include investing in 
defense, caring for those most in need and creating an economic climate 
that allows people to succeed without raising the burden of taxation on 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam), but I think he must have been talking about a different 
amendment. The gentleman refers to significant cuts in national 
defense. There is only one cut in any program that can be considered at 
all related to national defense in this amendment, and that is a $1 
billion reduction in the Star Wars account because they have had so 
many technical problems with that program that they cannot in the 
coming fiscal year spend all of the money that has been provided to 
them. So the practical impact on the program will be zero. That is the 
only reduction in defense.
  I would point out that this comes on top of a $16 billion increase in 
the defense budget which is before us right now, and it comes on top of 
the $80 billion that we added yesterday for Iraq that was not counted 
in the President's budget. So I would suggest it is a red herring to 
claim this has any significant negative effect on defense. In fact, I 
will bet Members that considerably more than a billion dollars remains 
unspent from that Star Wars account

[[Page 5095]]

at the end of the fiscal year because of technical problems that the 
Pentagon itself has admitted are there.
  With respect to tax increases, I know the majority party likes to 
pretend that Democrats are talking about tax increases for the middle 
class. The facts are quite to the contrary. The only people who will 
lose anything by way of tax cuts in this amendment are people who make 
more than a million dollars a year. Under existing law if we leave 
things as they are right now, if you make less than $10,000, you 
average about an $8 tax cut under the President's package. If you make 
less than $20,000, you will get back the princely sum of $326. If you 
make $500,000 to $1 million, you will get on average a $27,000 tax cut. 
And if you make $1 million adjusted gross income or more, on average 
you will get a tax cut of $140,000.
  I do not know many people in that bracket who would not feel that 
investing in children, investing in homeland security, investing in 
veterans' benefits is preferable to giving those folks a super-size tax 
cut. We are not saying they cannot have a tax cut, we are simply 
limiting the size of their tax cut to $27,000 so we can meet these 
other investment needs. I think the vast majority of citizens in this 
country would think that is a better balance and a better set of 
priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure 
to be here on the floor once again, this time as a member of the 
Committee on the Budget. After being absent from this floor for 16 
years, some things are comforting, such as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) still maintains his skepticism about the anti-missile 
system. I appreciate that. I appreciate that in terms of his concern 
about us spending too much money this year in that regard.
  With respect to the comments made by some on the other side of the 
aisle that somehow the Republican budget is immoral, and I heard that 
during the one-minute speeches, and somehow it does not follow a 
standard of social justice or the social gospel, I tried to look at the 
numbers to see what we are talking about, and if one looks at any graph 
that looks at the mandatory spending, we see the difference between the 
baseline and what we have placed in this budget is almost 
indistinguishable.
  So then I looked at some of the other areas that the gentleman has 
spoken to, and one is the National Institutes of Health. I thought 
since I have been gone and since the Republicans have taken over the 
House of Representatives that reflecting the comments about the 
Republican attitude toward NIH, that somehow we had denuded NIH in the 
time since Republicans had taken over. So I went back and checked it 
out, and under Republican Congresses, NIH spending has doubled between 
1999 and the year 2003, rising from $13.6 billion in 1999 to $27.2 
billion in the year 2003.

                              {time}  1045

  Again I heard a comment about veterans, that somehow Republicans are 
not concerned about veterans. I went back and checked the numbers since 
I was last here. Since 1995, total spending on veterans, that is, 1995 
since the Republicans took over, total spending on veterans has 
increased from $38.2 billion to $67.6 billion. That is a 77 percent 
increase.
  I wanted to see how that compared with the previous 10 years, again, 
most of which I was gone, but during which the Democrats were in 
control of the House; and I found out that there was a 40 percent 
increase during the previous 10 years.
  I would not on this floor suggest that the Democrats were immoral in 
their approach to the veterans in their previous 10 years even though 
their increase for veterans was substantially lower than Republicans'. 
It is not a question of morality, it is not a question of social 
justice, it is not a question of social gospel, the words that I heard 
expressed just a moment ago; but, rather, it is a question as to where 
we are now. After we have had significant, hefty increases in these 
particular areas during the time that Republicans have been in control, 
is it a time for us to slow down that increased rate of growth during a 
time in which we finally are confronting the fiscal responsibility that 
is visited upon this House as our obligation and our authority?
  During the time I was gone, I was able to observe this House from a 
distance, and I realized there is a real disconnect. People back home 
seem to think that we are spending too much. They are not arguing for 
increased taxes. I understand the gentleman believes that an increase 
in taxes on some people is not a general increase in taxes. We can 
always follow that old slogan, Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that 
guy behind the tree. It is always that game, I will not call it a game, 
it is always that approach that can be relevant in debates such as 
this.
  But the fact of the matter is that the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
with sincerity presented us an amendment that increases taxes and 
increases spending. That is the long and short of it. The suggestion is 
that somehow we have been unfaithful to our charge to be concerned 
about the education of the people of America and the veterans. That 
charge is just patently false. The fact of the matter is we now have 
established priorities overall for our spending. We believe we have 
done this in a responsible way. We believe we have done this in a way 
that most Americans would support. We believe we have made sure that we 
are not going to cut defense.
  The gentleman has suggested $1 billion less spending in defense. I 
think most Members would not support that. We can suggest to the 
appropriators and the authorizing committees where they ought to cut, 
but we cannot demand that. So the gentleman's desire that they take the 
$1 billion out of a particular place is not necessarily where it is 
going to come out of. The only thing we know if we adopt the 
gentleman's amendment is that we will be spending $1 billion less on 
national defense at a time when very few Americans would support that.
  With all due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I appreciate 
his approach. It is a consistent approach that he has used; but it is 
an approach that, yes, increases spending and increases taxes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. I find the logic of 
the gentleman interesting. He says that this amendment will result in 
cutting defense $1 billion. It will not. It will result in a defense 
budget increase of $16 billion, not counting the $80 billion add-on 
that we provided yesterday. All we are doing is eliminating $1 billion 
of the increase because it cannot be spent because of technical 
problems in the program. That does not reduce the effective firepower 
of the United States by one bullet.
  Let me also note the gentleman had some interesting comments on 
mandatories. This amendment does not touch mandatories. All we are 
dealing with in our amendment is the appropriated side of the budget 
for 1 year alone. We are not getting into the argument about 
mandatories. That is in the jurisdiction of another committee. So the 
gentleman's remarks are interesting, but irrelevant in terms of this 
amendment.
  With respect to NIH, let me simply say, we can talk about how much it 
has been increased the past few years. If you think it is a good idea 
for us to have 500 fewer research grants out in the field attacking 
cancer, attacking Parkinson's, attacking diabetes, then by all means 
vote against my amendment. If you think we ought to correct that, I 
would urge you to vote for it. If you think we are spending enough on 
veterans, then by all means vote against this amendment. If you think 
we are not, then I would suggest you vote for our amendment which adds 
$3 billion to the veterans health care budget.
  We have a huge hole in the services that we provide veterans. All you 
have to do to realize that is to talk to some of those soldiers who 
have come back

[[Page 5096]]

missing arms, missing legs, missing eyes. If you are comfortable with 
the amount that we are providing for the VA now, by all means vote 
against my amendment. Otherwise, vote for it. If you are comfortable 
with the fact that the President's budget will make it harder for low-
income seniors to keep their houses heated during wintertime, then by 
all means vote against the amendment.
  But do not do what 40 Members of the majority party did last year. 
After they voted for a budget which required a squeeze on all kinds of 
domestic programs, then they wrote our committee a letter asking us to 
increase funding for LIHEAP, increase funding for education, something 
which we could not do under the budget which the majority imposed on 
us.
  As the gentleman said, this is a question of priorities, and I make 
no apology for mine.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished ranking 
member's suggestion that if we disagree we should vote against it, and 
I assure him that we shall.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I was listening and I heard the very 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin suggest that his cuts to defense 
were slowing down the rate of growth for defense. It is kind of an 
interesting argument. I hope that the Members on his side listened to 
that argument because we are doing the same thing. We are slowing down 
the rate of growth. All of the mandatory programs will receive 
increases. All of those automatic spending programs will receive 
increases. All we are asking for is reform in slowing down the rate of 
growth. I have enormous respect for the gentleman when it comes to his 
advocacy for finding savings in defense. We should look for savings in 
defense. We should look for reforms. I do not think we should do that 
necessarily today during a war; but when you argue to slow the rate of 
growth, I think it is a valuable argument. I hope that we hear that 
more often now. When we hear about these drastic, dramatic cuts to the 
mandatory programs in the future, I hope they will listen to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I could not resist speaking 
this morning on this amendment that promotes, in my opinion, family 
values. The budget instructions call for $4.3 billion in cuts in 
education. How does that reflect family values? It calls for a $69 
billion reduction in health care programs like Medicaid and food 
stamps. I as a parent and as a Member of this body would hope that the 
majority would see the wisdom in adopting the Obey amendment.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the newest member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, he did mention I am the newest member, but I am also 
the only CPA on the committee. I brought that burden to the activities 
of the committee. It seems that every business that I have ever 
consulted with, every client that I have ever had, every family that I 
am aware of has to live within their means. All of us can at one point 
or another spend more money than we are bringing in, whether it is 
family or a business; but you cannot do it very long.
  The only organization that can do it over an extended amount of time 
is this body, is the Federal Government here in Washington, DC. Just 
because it can should not mean that it should. And we should not be 
doing that. We are leaving debt to our children that they will have to 
pay off or that they will have to look their children in the eye and 
say, We're going to pass it on to you. Our grandparents passed it on to 
us, and we're going to keep passing this thing on.
  The issue of living within our means means that you have to make some 
tough choices and you do have to set some priorities. The Budget 
Committee hearing on members' day, we sat there all day long and 
listened to a long litany of amendments just like this one, couched in 
the phrases that we have already heard, that these are not family 
values when you, quote-unquote, cut spending; these are not love for 
the military when you cut spending for veterans and veterans affairs. 
You can make these arguments that if you vote against mom, apple pie 
and the girl you left behind, you are a horrible person; but the truth 
of the matter is all across this Nation, all of us have to make tough 
decisions on where we spend our money.
  I stand in opposition to this amendment. The budget that is going to 
be proposed later on today does in fact make some of those tough 
choices, begins to start that process of trying to force this 
government to live within its means. Tax revenues are going up because 
the economy that we live in is improving. That is the way that we ought 
to do it. But we have to hold down spending. Reducing the rate of 
growth overall in mandatory spending by one-tenth percent from 6.4 
percent growth to 6.3 percent growth, I am hard pressed as an 
accountant and a CPA to understand why that is a cut. It is just a 
slowdown in the growth of increases.
  The other side presents every one of these very good programs as if 
they are the best they can be, that they are totally efficient, that 
they are not spending money where they should not. I do not think that 
is the case. I stand in opposition to this gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply cite a couple of other specifics. One of 
my objections to the President's budget is that the President is not 
asking to slow the rate of increase in education; the President is 
asking us to cut education funding below last year's level at the same 
time that we have laid the mother of all mandates on local school 
districts. Under No Child Left Behind, we have given them a whole set 
of marching orders. They are very expensive marching orders, but we 
have fallen more than $9 billion behind the amount that we promised in 
the authorization that we would be providing to those local school 
districts if we passed those education mandates. It seems to me we 
ought to live up to our promise.
  Pell grants. Pell grants is the major program that enables young 
people from poor families to go to college so that ``equal 
opportunity'' is something other than a slogan in this country. Under 
the President's budget, the percentage of cost at a 4-year public 
university that will be paid for by Pell grants will drop from 41 
percent to 34 percent. I do not call that progress.
  I would also point out that the President's budget requires the 
imposition of new fees on veterans in order to gain access to the 
veterans health care system. I do not think we ought to do that.
  So the issue before us is very simple. Do you want to insist that we 
give tax cuts of $140,000 on average to people who make over a million 
bucks? Or do you want to scale those tax cuts back to $27,000 on 
average and use that money to invest in more care for our veterans, to 
invest in better education for our kids, to invest in a stronger 
homeland defense, to invest in more efforts to protect our parks from 
encroachment?
  The choice is simple. I think it is very clear where the American 
people come down on this.
  I will repeat my assertion. I believe the President's budget adds to 
the gap between the wealthy and the poor in this country. In that 
sense, I think it is social Darwinism. I repeat that charge, I stand by 
it, and I think that this in contrast more nearly recognizes the 
message of the social gospel, which is that we do need to care about 
each other.
  I would remind you of the words, ``What you do for the least of 
these, you do for me.'' That is what this amendment is trying to do. I 
make no apology for it.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 5097]]

  The gentleman is right. It is simple. His amendment is not a complete 
substitute for our budget. It is simply reducing the amount of growth 
in defense, as he clarified for us, and increasing taxes.

                              {time}  1100

  He points out the eight-tenths of 1 percent reduction in nonsecurity 
domestic discretionary spending. Does the gentleman believe that in 
amongst the stacks of GAO reports that come across his desk as the 
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, our desk in the 
Committee on the Budget, that there is not eight-tenths of 1 percent? 
Eight-tenths of 1 percent in one's personal budget they lose on diet 
Cokes on the way to work every morning. Eight-tenths of 1 percent 
cannot be found in negotiating a better deal on computer equipment, 
office supplies, travel, increased financial accounting?
  Spending for education, one that he pointed out specifically, has 
gone up 146 percent over the last 10 years, and now we are talking 
about shaving eight-tenths of 1 percent off. Pell grants, the President 
calls for them to go up. Our budget would allow for that. Fees for 
veterans are not even budgeted for in this. While the gentleman rightly 
pointed out the President's budget, the President's budget is not up 
for debate today, and this budget that the House will vote on later 
does not call for fees on our veterans.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Obey amendment and support for the 
underlying House budget.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would simply say the gentleman asked whether I thought that we 
could possibly find places in the budget that are wasteful that we 
could eliminate in order to meet the limits of the budget resolution. I 
would ask him how did he vote yesterday on our motion to create a 
Truman-like committee to investigate the fraud that is going on on the 
part of a number of military contractors in Iraq? We hear daily stories 
about how taxpayers are being ripped off. If the gentleman is concerned 
about taxpayers' money being wasted, why did he not vote for that 
amendment yesterday instead of voting against it like every other good 
soldier did over there yesterday? They all voted against it.
  So, Mr. Chairman, what we have before us is very simple. We have a 
choice of sticking with the Committee on the Budget's budget, which 
will leave in place tax cuts of $140,000 on average for people who make 
over 1 million bucks or whether they think in the interest of social 
justice and compassion, we ought to scale back those tax cuts so they 
have to skimp by on only $27,000. The poor devils. They are going to 
have to get food stamps to get along, I guess, if they are only getting 
a $27,000 tax cut.
  The question is, are we going to scale back those super-sized tax 
cuts so we can meet our obligations in the area of education, veterans 
health care, homeland security, and the other items I have just named? 
I think economically and morally it is not even a close choice.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shaw). All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 15-
minute vote on the Obey amendment will be followed by a 5-minute vote, 
if ordered, on the Hensarling amendment on which proceedings were 
postponed last evening.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 242, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 82]

                               AYES--180

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--242

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

[[Page 5098]]



                             NOT VOTING--12

     Coble
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Foley
     Forbes
     King (NY)
     Larson (CT)
     Portman
     Reynolds
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1133

  Messrs. SCHWARZ of Michigan, TERRY, CHOCOLA, DAVIS of Tennessee and 
FORD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MURTHA and Mr. BILIRAKIS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 82 I was unavoidably 
detained at a meeting at the White House. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''


Amendment No. 2 In the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The unfinished business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Hensarling:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION. 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2006.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 is hereby 
     established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2005 and 2007 through 2010 are hereby set forth.
       (b) Table of contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

            TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Submission of report on savings to be used for members of the 
              Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

Sec. 301 Rainy Day Fund for nonmilitary emergencies.
Sec. 302 Contingency procedure for surface transportation.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Point of Order Protection.
Sec. 402. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 403. Automatic votes on expensive legislation.
Sec. 404. Turn off the Gephardt Rule.
Sec. 405. Restriction on the use of emergency spending.
Sec. 406. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act 
              of 1990.
Sec. 407. Action pursuant to section 302(b)(1) of the Congressional 
              Budget Act of 1974.
Sec. 408. Changes in allocations and aggregates resulting from 
              realistic scoring of measures affecting revenues.
Sec. 409. Prohibition in using revenue increases to comply with budget 
              allocation and aggregates.
Sec. 410. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 411. Entitlement safeguard.
Sec. 412. Budget Protection Mandatory Account.
Sec. 413. Budget Protection Discretionary Account.

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

Sec. 501. Sense of the House on spending accountability.
Sec. 502. Sense of the House on entitlement reform.
Sec. 503. Sense of the House regarding the abolishment of obsolete 
              agencies and Federal sunset proposals.
Sec. 504. Sense of the House regarding the goals of this concurrent 
              resolution and the elimination of certain programs.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2010:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $1,483,971,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $1,589,905,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $1,693,266,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $1,824,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $1,928,663,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,043,903,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be reduced are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $53,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $16,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $24,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $4,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $8,570,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $9,063,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,070,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,125,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,185,198,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,291,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,404,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,497,636,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $2,052,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $2,143,613,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $2,192,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $2,275,421,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,377,265,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,476,988,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $568,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $553,708,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $499,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $451,170,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $448,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $433,085,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $4,685,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $5,060,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $5,374,742,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $5,626,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $5,865,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $6,074,877,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2005: $7,958,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006: $8,623,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007: $9,249,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008: $9,839,054,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009: $10,438,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010: $11,029,815,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2005 through 2010 for each major functional category are as 
     follows:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,621,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $497,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $441,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $475,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $465,260,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $503,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $489,220,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $513,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $505,908,000,000.
       (2) Homeland Security (100):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,896,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,186,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,673,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,029,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,081,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,244,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,910,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,404,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,703,000,000.
       (3) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.

[[Page 5099]]

       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (4) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (5) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (6) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (7) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (8) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (9) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (10) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (11) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.

[[Page 5100]]

       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (12) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (13) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (14) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (15) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (17) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (18) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from 
     function 920.
       (B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
       (19) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $276,942,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $276,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $310,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $310,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $358,951,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $358,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $395,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $395,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $423,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $423,169,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $448,789,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $448,789,000,000.
       (20) Allowances (920):

[[Page 5101]]

       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,325,002,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,315,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,399,360,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,384,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,394,577,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,407,005,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,477,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,444,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,505,999,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,493,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,566,983,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,553,407,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2005:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$54,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2006:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$55,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2007:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$64,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2008:
       (A) New budget authority, -$65,480,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, -$60,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$60,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$62,822,000,000.

            TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste, 
     Fraud, and Abuse in Mandatory Programs.--(1) Not later than 
     July 15, 2005, the House committees named in paragraph (2) 
     shall submit their recommendations to the House Committee on 
     the Budget. After receiving those recommendations, the House 
     Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a 
     reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
     without any substantive revision.
       (2) Instructions.--
       (A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on 
     Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $893,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $5,959,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (B) Committee on education and the workforce.--The House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
     level of direct spending for that committee by $2,128,000,000 
     in outlays for fiscal year 2006 and $21,803,000,000 in 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $1,419,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $30,725,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (D) Committee on financial services.--The House Committee 
     on Financial Services shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $30,000,000 in new budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2006 and $270,000,000 in new budget 
     authority for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (E) Committee on government reform.--The House Committee on 
     Government Reform shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $268,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $3,164,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (F) Committee on house administration.--The House Committee 
     on House Administration shall report changes in laws within 
     its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $57,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $2,673,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (G) Committee on international relations.--The House 
     Committee on International Relations shall report changes in 
     laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level 
     of direct spending for that committee by $45,000,000 in 
     outlays for fiscal year 2006 and $504,000,000 in outlays for 
     the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (H) Committee on the judiciary.--The House Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $144,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $826,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (I) Committee on resources.--The House Committee on 
     Resources shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $114,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $1,598,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (J) Committee on science.--The House Committee on Science 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that 
     committee by $303,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2006 and 
     $3,864,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2010.
       (K) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $65,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2006 and $690,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (L) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $155,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $798,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (M) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on 
     Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $6,534,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2006 and $52,391,000,000 in outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       (N) Special rule.--The chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may take into account legislation enacted after the 
     adoption of this resolution that is determined to reduce the 
     deficit and may make applicable adjustments in reconciliation 
     instructions, allocations, and budget aggregates and may also 
     make adjustments in reconciliation instructions to protect 
     earned benefit programs.
       (b) Submission Providing for Changes in Revenue.--The House 
     Committee on Ways and Means shall report a reconciliation 
     bill not later than June 24, 2005, that consists of changes 
     in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues 
     by not more than $17,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and by 
     not more than $105,900,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2006 through 2010.
       (c)(1) Upon the submission to the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House of a recommendation that has complied with its 
     reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of section 
     310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman 
     of that committee may file with the House appropriately 
     revised allocations under section 302(a) of such Act and 
     revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Upon the submission to the House of a conference report 
     recommending a reconciliation bill or resolution in which a 
     committee has complied with its reconciliation instructions 
     solely by virtue of this section, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (3) Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

     SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON DEFENSE SAVINGS.

       In the House, not later than May 15, 2005, the Committee on 
     Armed Services shall submit to the Committee on the Budget 
     its findings that identify $2,000,000,000 in savings from (1) 
     activities that are determined to be of a low priority to the 
     successful execution of current military operations; or (2) 
     activities that are determined to be wasteful or unnecessary 
     to national defense. Funds identified should be reallocated 
     to programs and activities that directly contribute to 
     enhancing the combat capabilities of the U.S. military forces 
     with an emphasis on force protection, munitions, and 
     surveillance capabilities. For purposes of this subsection, 
     the report by the Committee on Armed Services shall be 
     inserted in the Congressional Record by the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget not later than May 21, 2005.

           TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

     SEC. 301. RAINY DAY FUND FOR NON-MILITARY EMERGENCIES.

       In the House of Representatives and the Senate, if the 
     Committee on Appropriations reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that provides new 
     budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) for 
     nonmilitary emergencies, then the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget of that House shall make the appropriate 
     revisions to the allocations and other levels in this 
     resolution by the amount provided by that measure for that 
     purpose, but the total adjustment for all measures considered 
     under this section shall not exceed $20,000,000,000 in new 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2006 and outlays flowing 
     therefrom.

     SEC. 302. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--If the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House reports legislation, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that provides new budget authority for the 
     budget accounts or

[[Page 5102]]

     portions thereof in the highway and transit categories as 
     defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in excess of 
     the following amounts:
       (1) for fiscal year 2005: $42,806,000,000,
       (2) for fiscal year 2006: $45,899,100,000,
       (3) for fiscal year 2007: $47,828,700,000,
       (4) for fiscal year 2008: $49,715,400,000, or
       (5) for fiscal year 2009: $51,743,500,000,
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of 
     new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2005 
     and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to the 
     extent such excess is offset by a reduction in mandatory 
     outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or an increase in 
     receipts appropriated to such fund for the applicable fiscal 
     year caused by such legislation or any previously enacted 
     legislation.
       (b) Adjustment for Outlays.--For fiscal year 2006, in the 
     House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that changes obligation limitations such that 
     the total limitations are in excess of $42,792,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006 for programs, projects, and activities 
     within the highway and transit categories as defined in 
     sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and if legislation has 
     been enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in 
     subsection (a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation of 
     outlays and appropriate aggregates for such fiscal year for 
     the committee reporting such measure by the amount of outlays 
     that corresponds to such excess obligation limitations, but 
     not to exceed the amount of such excess that was offset 
     pursuant to subsection (a).

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. POINT OF ORDER PROTECTION.

       (a) In General.--(1) A report by the Committee on Rules on 
     a rule or order that would waive section 302(f) or 303(a) 
     (other than paragraph (2)) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 may not be called up for consideration (over the 
     objection of any Member) except when so determined by a vote 
     of a majority of the Members duly chosen and sworn, a quorum 
     being present.
       (2) A question of consideration under this paragraph shall 
     be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided by a proponent 
     and opponent of the question but shall otherwise be decided 
     without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.
       (3) This paragraph does not apply to any rule providing for 
     consideration of any legislation the title of which is as 
     follows: ``A bill to preserve Social Security.''
       (b) Waiver Prohibition.--The Committee on Rules may not 
     report a rule or order proposing a waiver of subsection (a).

     SEC. 402. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported 
     in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation 
     or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an 
     amendment thereto.
       (2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a 
     Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless 
     specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given 
     by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
       (b) Exception.--In the House, an advance appropriation may 
     be provided for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal years 2008 for 
     programs, projects, activities or accounts identified in the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying this 
     resolution under the heading `Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations' in an aggregate amount not to exceed 
     $23,568,000,000 in new budget authority.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority 
     in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations 
     or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2006 that first 
     becomes available for any fiscal year after 2006.

     SEC. 403. AUTOMATIC VOTES ON EXPENSIVE LEGISLATION.

       In the House, the yeas and nays shall be considered as 
     ordered when the Speaker puts the question on passage of a 
     bill or joint resolution, or on adoption of conference 
     report, which authorizes or provides new budget authority of 
     not less $50,000,000. The Speaker may not entertain a 
     unanimous consent request or motion to suspend this section.

     SEC. 404. TURN OFF THE GEPHARDT RULE.

       Rule XXVII shall not apply with respect to the adoption by 
     the Congress of a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 405. EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       (a) Exemption of Overseas Contingency Operations.--In the 
     House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or an 
     amendment is offered thereto or a conference report is filed 
     thereon, that makes supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2006 for contingency operations related to the global 
     war on terrorism, then the new budget authority, new 
     entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting 
     therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 
     and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for the 
     provisions of such measure that are designated pursuant to 
     this subsection as making appropriations for such contingency 
     operations.
       (b) Exemption of Emergency Provisions.--In the House, if a 
     bill or joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is 
     offered thereto or a conference report is filed thereon, that 
     designates a provision as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to this section, then the new budget authority, new 
     entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting 
     therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303, 
     311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (c) Designations.--
       (1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation 
     is designated as an emergency requirement under subsection 
     (b), the committee report and any statement of managers 
     accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of 
     the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in 
     paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the 
     House without being reported, then the committee shall cause 
     the explanation to be published in the Congressional Record 
     in advance of floor consideration.
       (2) Criteria.--
       (A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency 
     requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to 
     life, property, or national security and is--
       (i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up 
     over time;
       (ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       (iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       (iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       (B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate 
     level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally 
     estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
       (d) Enforcement.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment or conference report that contains an emergency 
     designation unless that designation meets the criteria set 
     out in subsection (c)(2).
       (e) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall 
     not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a 
     rule or order that waives the application of subsection (d).
       (f) Disposition of Points of Order in the House.--As 
     disposition of a point of order under subsection (d) or 
     subsection (e), the Chair shall put the question of 
     consideration with respect to the proposition that is the 
     subject of the point of order. A question of consideration 
     under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the 
     Member initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent of the point of order, but shall otherwise be 
     decided without intervening motion except one that the House 
     adjourn or that the Committee of the Whole rise, as the case 
     may be.

     SEC. 406. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

       (a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section 
     302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for 
     the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security Administration.
       (b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying 
     section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     estimates of the level of total new budget authority and 
     total outlays provided by a measure shall include any 
     discretionary amounts provided for the Social Security 
     Administration.

     SEC. 407. ACTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(B)(1) OF THE 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

       (a) Compliance.--When complying with Section 302(b)(1) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House shall consult with the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the other House to ensure that the 
     allocation of budget outlays and new budget authority among 
     each Committee's subcommittees are identical.
       (b) Report.--The Committee on Appropriations of each House 
     shall report to its House when it determines that the report 
     made by the Committee pursuant to Section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the report made by the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the other House pursuant to 
     the same provision contain identical allocations of budget 
     outlays and new budget authority among each Committee's 
     subcommittees.
       (c) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report providing 
     new discretionary budget authority for Fiscal Year 2006 
     allocated to the Committee on Appropriations unless and until 
     the Committee on Appropriations of that House has made the 
     report required under paragraph (b) of this Section.

     SEC. 408. CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES RESULTING 
                   FROM REALISTIC SCORING OF MEASURES AFFECTING 
                   REVENUES.

       (a) Whenever the House considers a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion or conference report, including measures 
     filed in

[[Page 5103]]

     compliance with section 201(b) or 201(c), that propose to 
     change federal revenues, the impact of such measure on 
     federal revenues shall be calculated by the Joint Committee 
     on Taxation in a manner that takes into account--
       (1) the impact of the proposed revenue changes on--
       (A) Gross Domestic Product, including the growth rate for 
     the Gross Domestic Product;
       (B) total domestic employment;
       (C) gross private domestic investment;
       (D) general price index;
       (E) interest rates; and
       (F) other economic variables;
       (2) the impact on Federal Revenue of the changes in 
     economic variables analyzed under subpart (1) of this 
     paragraph.
       (b) the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make 
     any necessary changes to allocations and aggregates in order 
     to conform this concurrent resolution with the determinations 
     made by the Joint Committee on Taxation pursuant to paragraph 
     (a) of this Section.

     SEC. 409. PROHIBITION ON USING REVENUE INCREASES TO COMPLY 
                   WITH BUDGET ALLOCATIONS AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) For the purpose of enforcing this concurrent resolution 
     in the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall not take into account the provisions of any piece of 
     legislation which propose to increase revenue or offsetting 
     collections if the net effect of the bill is to increase the 
     level of revenue or offsetting collections beyond the level 
     assumed in this concurrent resolution.
       (b) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to any 
     provision of a piece of legislation that proposes a new or 
     increased fee for the receipt of a defined benefit or service 
     (including insurance coverage) by the person or entity paying 
     the fee.

     SEC. 410. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution--
       (1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the 
     appropriate Committee on the Budget; and
       (2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments 
     to such levels to carry out this resolution.

     SEC. 411. ENTITLEMENT SAFEGUARD.

       (a) It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives to consider an direct spending legislation 
     that would increase an on-budget deficit or decrease an on-
     budget surplus as provided by paragraph (e) for any 
     applicable time period.
       (b) For purposes of this clause, the term ``applicable time 
     period'' means any of the following periods:
       (1) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the 
     most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (2) The period of the 5 fiscal years following first 5 
     years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget.
       (c) For purposes of this section and except as provided in 
     paragraph (d), the term ``direct-spending legislation'' means 
     any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report 
     that affects direct spending as that term is defined by, and 
     interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (d) For purposes of this section, the term ``direct-
     spending legislation'' does not include--
       (1) any legislation the title of which is as follows: ``A 
     bill to preserve Social Security.''; or
       (2) any legislation that would cause a net increase in 
     aggregate direct spending of less than $100,000,000 for any 
     applicable time period.
       (e) If direct spending legislation increases the on-budget 
     deficit or decreases an on-budget surpluses when taken 
     individually, it must also increase the on-budget deficit or 
     decrease the on-budget surplus when taken together with all 
     direct spending legislation enacted since the beginning of 
     the calendar year not accounted for in the baseline assumed 
     for the most recent concurrent resolution on the budget, 
     except that direct spending effects resulting in net deficit 
     reduction enacted pursuant to reconciliation instructions 
     since the beginning of that same calendar year shall not be 
     available.
       (f) This section may be waived by the affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (g) For purposes of this section, the levels of budget 
     authority and outlays for a fiscal year shall be determined 
     on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the 
     Budget.
       (h) The Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order 
     proposing a waiver of paragraph (a).

     SEC. 412. BUDGET PROTECTION MANDATORY ACCOUNT.

       (a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection 
     Mandatory Account''. The Account shall be divided into 
     entries corresponding to the allocations under section 302(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the most recently 
     adopted concurrent resolution on the budget, except that it 
     shall not include the Committee on Appropriations.
       (2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint 
     resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint 
     resolution (other than an appropriation bill), the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget shall--
       (A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection 
     Mandatory Account by the amounts specified in subparagraph 
     (2); and
       (B) reduce the applicable 302(a) allocations by the amount 
     specified in subparagraph (2).
       (2) Each amount specified in subparagraph (A) shall be the 
     net reduction in mandatory budget authority (either under 
     current law or proposed by the bill or joint resolution under 
     consideration) provided by each amendment that was adopted in 
     the House to the bill or joint resolution.
       (c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in 
     subparagraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall, upon the engrossment of a House bill or joint 
     resolution or a House amendment to a Senate bill or joint 
     resolution, other than an appropriation bill, reduce the 
     level of total revenues set forth in the applicable 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year or 
     for the total of that first fiscal year and the ensuing 
     fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction in 
     mandatory authority (either under current law or proposed by 
     a bill or joint resolution under consideration) provided by 
     each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution. Such adjustment shall be in addition to the 
     adjustments described in subsection (b).
       (2)(A) The provision specified in subparagraph (1) is as 
     follows: ``The amount of mandatory budget authority reduced 
     by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in 
     revenues.''
       (B) All points of order are waived against an amendment 
     including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the 
     amendment is otherwise in order.
       (d) As used in this rule, the term--
       (1) ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations 
     through the end of fiscal year 2006 or any subsequent fiscal 
     year, as the case may be.
       (2) ``mandatory budget authority'' means any entitlement 
     authority as defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (e) During the consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all 
     Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and 
     decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 413. BUDGET DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS.

       (a)(1) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain an account to be known as the ``Budget Protection 
     Discretionary Account'';. The Account shall be divided into 
     entries corresponding to the allocation to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the committee's suballocations, under 
     section 302(a) and 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
       (2) Each entry shall consist only of amounts credited to it 
     under subsection (b). No entry of a negative amount shall be 
     made.
       (b)(1) Upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill, 
     the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall--
       (A) credit the applicable entries of the Budget Protection 
     Discretionary Account by the amounts specified in 
     subparagraph (2).
       (B) reduce the applicable 302(a) and (b) allocations by the 
     amount specified in subparagraph (2).
       (2) Each amount specified in subparagraph (A) shall be the 
     net reduction in discretionary budget authority provided by 
     each amendment adopted by the House to the bill or joint 
     resolution.
       (c)(1) If an amendment includes a provision described in 
     subparagraph (2), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall, upon the engrossment of a House appropriations bill, 
     reduce the level of total revenues set forth in the 
     applicable concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 
     year or for the total of that first fiscal year and the 
     ensuing fiscal years in an amount equal to the net reduction 
     in discretionary budget authority

[[Page 5104]]

     provided by each amendment that was adopted by the House to 
     the bill or joint resolution. Such adjustment shall be in 
     addition to the adjustments described in subsection (b).
       (2)(A) The provision specified in subparagraph (1) is as 
     follows: ``The amount of discretionary budget authority 
     reduced by this amendment may be used to offset a decrease in 
     revenues.''
       (B) All points of order are waived against an amendment 
     including the text specified in subparagraph (A) provided the 
     amendment is otherwise in order.
       (d) As used in this rule, the term ``appropriation bill'' 
     means any general or special appropriation bill, and any bill 
     or joint resolution making supplemental, deficiency, or 
     continuing appropriations through the end of fiscal year 2006 
     or any subsequent fiscal year, as the case may be.
       (e) During the consideration of any bill or joint 
     resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall 
     maintain a running tally, which shall be available to all 
     Members, of the amendments adopted reflecting increases and 
     decreases of budget authority in the bill or joint 
     resolution.

                      TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

     SEC. 501. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY.

       It is the sense of the House that--
       (1) authorizing committees should actively engage in 
     oversight utilizing--
       (A) the plans and goals submitted by executive agencies 
     pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 
     1993; and
       (B) the performance evaluations submitted by such agencies 
     (that are based upon the Program Assessment Rating Tool which 
     is designed to improve agency performance);in order to enact 
     legislation to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse to ensure 
     the efficient use of taxpayer dollars;
       (2) all Federal programs should be periodically 
     reauthorized and funding for unauthorized programs should be 
     level-funded in fiscal year 2006 unless there is a compelling 
     justification;
       (3) committees should submit written justifications for 
     earmarks and should consider not funding those most 
     egregiously inconsistent with national policy;
       (4) the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution should be 
     vigorously enforced and legislation should be enacted 
     establishing statutory limits on appropriations and a PAY-AS-
     YOU-GO rule for new and expanded entitlement programs; and
       (5) Congress should make every effort to offset nonwar-
     related supplemental appropriations.

     SEC. 502. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ENTITLEMENT REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that welfare was 
     successfully reformed through the application of work 
     requirements, education and training opportunity, and time 
     limits on eligibility.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that 
     authorizing committees should--
       (1) systematically review all means-tested entitlement 
     programs and track beneficiary participation across programs 
     and time;
       (2) enact legislation to develop common eligibility 
     requirements for means-tested entitlement programs;
       (3) enact legislation to accurately rename means-tested 
     entitlement programs;
       (4) enact legislation to coordinate program benefits in 
     order to limit to a reasonable period of time the Government 
     dependency of means-tested entitlement program participants;
       (5) evaluate the costs of, and justifications for, 
     nonmeans-tested, nonretirement-related entitlement programs; 
     and
       (6) identify and utilize resources that have conducted 
     cost-benefit analyses of participants in multiple means- and 
     nonmeans-tested entitlement programs to understand their 
     cumulative costs and collective benefits.

     SEC. 503. SENSE OF HOUSE REGARDING THE ABOLISHMENT OF 
                   OBSOLETE AGENCIES AND FEDERAL SUNSET PROPOSALS.

       (a) The House finds the following:
       (1) The National Commission on the Public Service's recent 
     report, ``Urgent Business For America: Revitalizing The 
     Federal Government For The 21st Century,'' states that 
     government missions are so widely dispersed among so many 
     agencies that no coherent management is possible. The report 
     also states that fragmentation leaves many gaps, 
     inconsistencies, and inefficiencies in government oversight 
     and results in an unacceptable level of public health 
     protection.
       (2) According to the Commission, there are: more than 35 
     food safety laws administered by 12 different federal 
     agencies; 541 clean air, water, and waste programs in 29 
     federal agencies; 50 different programs to aid the homeless 
     in eight different Federal agencies; and 27 teen pregnancy 
     programs operated in nine Federal agencies; and 90 early 
     childhood programs scattered among 11 Federal agencies.
       (3) According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), there 
     are 163 programs with a job training or employment function, 
     64 welfare programs of a similar nature, and more than 500 
     urban aid programs.
       (4) GAO also indicates 13 agencies coordinate 342 economic 
     development programs, but there is very little or no 
     coordination between them. This situation has created a 
     bureaucracy so complex that many local communities stop 
     applying for economic assistance. At the same time, the GAO 
     reports that these programs often serve as nothing more than 
     funnels for pork, have ``no significant effect'' on the 
     economy, and cost as much as $_____ to create each job.
       (5) In 1976, Colorado became the first state to implement a 
     sunset mechanism. Today, about half of the Nation's States 
     have some sort of sunset mechanism in effect to monitor their 
     legislative branch agencies. On the Federal level, the United 
     States Senate in 1978 overwhelmingly passed legislation to 
     sunset most of the Government agencies by a vote of 87-1.
       (6) In Texas, ``sunsetting'' has eliminated 44 agencies and 
     saved the taxpayers $_____ million compared with expenditures 
     of $ million for the Sunset Commission. Based on these 
     estimates, for every dollar spent on the Sunset process, the 
     State has received about $ in return.
       (b) It is the Sense of the House that legislation providing 
     for the orderly abolishment of obsolete Agencies and 
     providing a federal sunset for government programs should be 
     enacted during this Congress.

     SEC. 504. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE GOALS OF THIS 
                   CONCURRENT RESOLUTION AND THE ELIMINATION OF 
                   CERTAIN PROGRAMS.

       (a) The House of Representatives finds the following:
       (1) The concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2006 should achieve the following key goals:
       (A) Ensure adequate funding is available for essential 
     government programs, in particular defense and homeland 
     security.
       (B) Foster greater economic growth and increased domestic 
     employment by eliminating those provisions in the tax code 
     that discourage economic growth and job creation and by 
     extending existing tax relief provisions so as to prevent an 
     automatic tax increase.
       (C) Bring the Federal budget back into balance as soon as 
     possible.
       (2) The Government spends billions of dollars each year on 
     programs and projects that are of marginal value to the 
     country as a whole.
       (3) Funding for these lower priority programs should be 
     viewed in light of the goals of this concurrent resolution 
     and whether or not continued funding of these programs 
     advances or hinders the achievement of these goals.
       (4) This concurrent resolution assumes that funding for 
     many lower priority programs will be reduced or eliminated in 
     order increase funding for defense and homeland security 
     while at the same time controlling overall spending.
       (b) It is the Sense of the House of Representatives that 
     the following programs should be eliminated:
       (1) Title X Family Planning.
       (2) Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
       (3) National Endowment for the Arts.
       (4) Legal Services Corporation.
       (5) the Advanced Technology Program.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 102, 
noes 320, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 83]

                               AYES--102

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Case
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--320

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert

[[Page 5105]]


     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Coble
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Foley
     Forbes
     Jefferson
     King (NY)
     Larson (CT)
     Melancon
     Portman
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1141

  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 83 I was unavoidably 
detained at a meeting at the White House. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2006, revising appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2005, and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________