Katie Porter: “I am surprised that the minority would offer this particular motion to recommit. When the House reported the bill, it…”

“I am surprised that the minority would offer this particular motion to recommit. When the House reported the bill, it exceeded the $23.5 billion cap in advanced appropriations, which is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was referring to. We funded the Child Care Block Grant at $2 billion in fiscal year 2002; that is an advance appropriation, which is roughly $800 million over the enacted FY 2001 amount. In the rule, a provision was added to the bill that assures that we will not exceed the overall budget cap of $23.5 billion set forth in the budget resolution. This is the provision that the motion to recommit of the gentleman would strike. If we adopt the motion of the gentleman and remove the sequester provision, it will simply mean that we will have to make it up somewhere else in the other bill. These bills will have to be cut, in order to stay within the budget resolution: we will have to make up the $800 million. So where will we make it up? We may have to cut section 8 housing money in VA-HUD. We may have to cut law enforcement money in Commerce-Justice-State. We may have to cut other money in other bills. So while this may seem like a very appealing provision, there has to be a way under the budget resolution to pay for it. Every one of the amendments of the gentleman during the debate on this bill have ignored the budget resolution. We cannot do so. We have to live under it. We have to live within the allocations made.”