Scott Walker: “I am doing this talking primarily as vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Speaker, the idea was our…”

“I am doing this talking primarily as vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Speaker, the idea was our understanding of the reason for the language in title IV was that this was a contingent spending based upon the potential for a broad budget deal that would in fact include entitlement savings. The concern was that the language, as written, was not specific, that this was to be part of a broader deal. In fact, by adding the term ``reconciliation'' to it, it does assure that is what we are doing in the legislation that would come pursuant to this rule. I would say that there have been questions raised about what if we have something that happens as part of the debt limit. The feeling is this bill will be in conference at that point, and the deal can be made then to make certain everything matches up at that point. At least as the bill leaves the House, we are certain we are not going to break budget caps, which is part of the language of title IV, which is you can exceed some of the caps, depending on what comes down the line in terms of the offsets. All we are trying to do is say if you are going to do that, it has to be a part of a broad budget negotiation that includes broad-based entitlement savings. We think this language, it is a fairly modest change, accomplishes that objective. That is the purpose behind it.”