Hearings of the House Committee on Rules
On Points of Order That Guarantee Spending Levels
Chairman, Committee on Rules
The Rules Committee will come to order. The purpose of this original jurisdiction hearing is to obtain information from interested committees about the procedural, institutional and policy implications of new House rules which seek to enforce guaranteed levels of spending for Federal programs.
Recently, several committees in the House have begun to explore new proposals to address budgeting uncertainties resulting from tight spending constraints. A proposal of concern to the Rules Committee is one that seeks to enforce a minimum level of spending through points of order in the House.
For a little over a year, the House has had a guaranteed spending point of order in its rules.
The Transportation Equity Act, last year's highway reauthorization bill, contained a point of order that guarantees specific levels of funding for highway and transit programs. Because the point of order was included in the conference report, and not in the House passed bill, there is no legislative history to help the Rules Committee better understand how the point of order will be applied in various circumstances.
There are a number of specific concerns that I hope can be addressed by this hearing. First is the concern that guaranteed spending rules create super-strong entitlement-like programs. Because such rules establish a floor on spending, they turn discretionary programs into "entitlement" programs (though still labeled discretionary spending) that have more protection than Social Security.
Should it be the policy of the House to lock in spending for one worthy program to the potential detriment of other worthy programs?
A second concern is that such rules complicate the offering of amendments. In general, guaranteed spending points of order make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to shift funding from program to program within a protected funding area, to reduce funding, or to shift funds to areas of greater need.
It is my hope that the testimony today will shed more light on these concerns as well as other questions about the application of guaranteed spending points of order and their effects on the budget process.
