Pete Sessions: “the budget point of order is not a technical budget point of order. It was a technical point of order with regard to the…”

“the budget point of order is not a technical budget point of order. It was a technical point of order with regard to the asbestos bill. This bill would provide $1 billion more in 2006 than the budget authorized. If we are going to spend $1 billion more than the budget authorized, how can that not be in violation of the budget? There are two aspects: first, you say it is paid for in the future. That is irrelevant to whether the Budget Act is violated, even if it were paid for. Second, we have been around here long enough to know we are not going to cut LIHEAP next year by $1 billion. We know that. As much as we would like to accommodate this spending--I can understand the desire of the Senators to do so--we should not do it because it violates the budget in a very fundamental way. It clearly is an unfair allocation of funds compared to my State, which receives $17 million less if it were distributed according to the discretionary plan, as opposed to the fundamental formula. I yield back my remaining time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?”