Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering the largest--and arguably most complex--of the domestic appropriations bills--the measure for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, H.R. 3010. I am pleased to say, as it addresses many of Congress's most sensitive domestic priorities, it also meets our fiscal responsibilities: it complies with the Budget Act, with our agreed spending levels, and with specific provisions of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006. The Budget Resolution H.R. 3010 provides $142.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $143.7 billion in new outlays for programs within the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies. This level represents a slight reduction from 2005: $329 million in budget authority. This reflects the need to restrain the rate of increase for non-defense, non-homeland security domestic discretionary programs, which provided the overall policy framework for this year's budget resolution. The $329-million reduction from 2005--which is just two-tenths of 1 percent--may feel more like $1 billion to the agencies funded by the bill. That is because the Appropriations Committee, in response to a White House request, included about $890 million for the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law's startup costs. Other programs in this bill had to make up the difference. But such trade-offs are intrinsic to budgeting. As a result, as noted, the bill complies with the FY 2006 Budget Resolution. Its spending levels are within the subcommittee's 302(b) suballocation of new budget authority. To meet the cap, the bill includes a few rescissions. The bill does not contain emergency funds. It complies with the budget resolution provisions on advance appropriations. Regarding this last point, the FY 2006 Budget Resolution places a total limit for advance appropriations in FY 2006 at $23.158 billion. The bill before us today will consume most of those funds, by providing $18.885 billion in advance appropriations for FY 2007. All of the accounts for which advances are made in the bill are listed as eligible within the budget resolution. Because no advance appropriations have yet been enacted this year, the bill does not cause a breach of this limit. Still, the House should be aware only $4.273 billion will remain available for advance appropriations. Programmatic Provisions Under this bill, Education would enjoy a slight ($120 million) increase, to $56.7 billion--which is $478 million over the President's request. In addition to that figure, the bill includes $4.3 billion to make up the Pell Grant backlog. This amount does no count against budget limits because it is scored as mandatory. Additionally, the bill continues the commitment the House has made to the National Institutes of Health, providing $230 million more than last year. This brings total NIH funding to $28.5 billion. Worker retraining and dislocated worker assistance programs are also restored and augmented, which should help us continue to expand employment and ensure that Americans who want to work will be able to find good jobs. Dislocated Worker Assistance is funded at $1.4 billion, $62 million above the request. Conclusion I commend the Committee on Appropriations for bringing us a bill that funds many priority programs Members care about while living within our means in an era requiring tougher fiscal discipline. This is a responsible bill that fulfills our commitments to the public while living within the constraints of difficult fiscal times.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, at a time when nearly all Federal agencies are facing the need for spending discipline, it is imperative that we apply restraint to ourselves as well--to the operations of Congress itself. This bill--the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (H.R. 2985)--does that it holds congressional spending to a modest 1.7 percent increase, compared with 2005. I rise in support of this bill, which complies with the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006. Most of the funding in this bill goes to non-political agencies, and non-elected people, who make it possible to do our work: the people who provide vital data and analysis to inform our policy decisions; who keep our buildings and grounds functioning; and--of special importance--providing security for all of the legislative branch. Spending Totals H.R. 2985 provides $2.87 billion in new budget authority and $2.5 billion in new outlays for programs within the Legislative Branch. This funding covers various legislative support agencies such as the Architect of the Capitol, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office, and the Capitol Police. The funding level represents an increase of $42 million in BA and $241 million in outlays over last year, a 1.7 percent increase from FY 2005 levels. Consistent with a long-standing practice--under which each chamber of Congress determines its own housekeeping requirements, and the other concurs without change, appropriations for the Senate are not included in the bill reported to the House. Budget Compliance This measure, in providing $2.865 billion in budget authority for the operations of the Legislative Branch excluding Senate functions, is well below the overall suballocation of $3.719 billion. However a level was set within this $3.719 billion for legislative operations excluding Senate functions of $2.831 billion. Hence, though this measure complies with the relevant points of order under the Budget Act, it breaches the level internally set by the Appropriations Committee. It is expected that, when this measure is reported from conference committee, the overall level of spending for all legislative operations, including House, Senate and support agencies, will be at or below the level set pursuant to 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. The bill contains a small recession in BA for the Library of Congress for the Copyright Reengineering Project and no advance appropriations or emergency-designated spending. Programmatic Spending The bill provides $311 million to the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) for various operational and maintenance activities under the jurisdiction of the AOC, including, $37 million to complete construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. This bill also recommends the establishment of a Capitol Visitors Center Governing Board to address the issue of daily operations of the visitor center. $543 million to the Library of Congress, a decrease of $2 million from FY 2005, $122 million to the Government Printing Office, an increase of $3 million from FY 2005 and $482 million for Government Accountability Office, an increase of $15 million over FY 2005. The bill also provides $240 million for the Capitol Police. As we all know, ever since 9-11 the demands on these officers have grown significantly. Finally, the bill provides $1.092 billion for operations of the House of Representatives and a modest increase of $13 million or 1.2 percent, compared with 2005. Conclusion I commend the Committee on Appropriations for bringing us a bill that funds the operations of this House at levels generally consistent with the levels authorized under the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, this measure--the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, H.R. 2863--is the most significant component of our wartime budget for America. It funds the bulk of the national defense commitment, particularly the global war against terrorism. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am also pleased to report that the measure is consistent with the levels established by the conference report to H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. The budget resolution called for $441.6 billion in discretionary budget authority for the national defense function in 2006, and an additional $50 billion under a special Exemption of Overseas Contingency Operations that would not count against the Defense subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. In this way the budget resolution anticipated costs for continuing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. A portion of the budget resolution's total national defense funding went toward the recently passed military quality of life and energy and water bills. This bill provides the balance of $363.4 billion in new discretionary budget authority towards funding the President's February defense budget request. It includes $45.3 billion that has been designated pursuant to section 401(a) of the budget resolution for Overseas Contingency Operations which are thereby exempt from the 302(b) allocations. These funds will, however, be counted against the discretionary totals identified in the budget resolution. Excluding the emergency portion, the bill's funding shows a 3.5- percent increase from the previous year, and it builds on a 5-year average annual growth rate of 10.5 percent for defense appropriations. The base amount is equal to the 302(b) allocation to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. I should note that the bill includes rescissions of prior year funds in the amount of $634 million which enable it to meet this allocation. Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution. One factor I wish to note is that the bill reduces funding for operations and maintenance considerably from the President's February request. Although there is a widespread belief that any potential operations and maintenance shortfall can simply be made up for with supplemental spending, Congress should avoid making a regular practice of budgeting by supplemental for predictable events. There is also a risk that cutting Defense spending may lead to a commensurate increase in discretionary non-defense spending. This would be inconsistent with the President's request to put the Nation's security first by reducing non-defense non-homeland security domestic discretionary growth to less than 1 percent. With that, I wish to reiterate my support for H.R. 2863.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006. This bill provides funding for a variety of agencies and programs, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, State and local law enforcement grants, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, and the diplomatic and consular programs at the Department of State to name a few. This bill marks the halfway point for the House in completing work on Appropriations for fiscal year 2006. I want to commend Chairman Lewis and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their aggressive pace in bringing these bills to the floor for debate and wish them well as we continue on in this process. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am pleased to note that this bill complies with the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95), specifically section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority in the budget resolution. H.R. 2862 provides $57.5 billion in appropriations for fiscal year 2006. This is an increase of $76 million in BA and $1.3 billion in outlays over the fiscal year 2005 level, and $3.2 billion in BA, and $615 million in outlays below the President's request. I should point out that in order to stay within the 302(b) allocation the bill derives savings from adjustments to various mandatory accounts and requiring the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to accrue certain retirement benefits. The largest savings results from the annual capping of the Crime Victim's Fund, which is set at $625 million for fiscal year 2006, and delaying the obligation of the remaining $1.2 billion until fiscal year 2007. Additionally, $62 million in savings is derived from a permanent and indefinite appropriation for the expenses of the management and disposal of assets from the Assets Forfeiture Fund. The accrual provision would technically result in $39 million in savings. The bill also shifts resources from some lower-priority programs at the Department of Commerce toward more important and higher-priority public safety and crime prevention programs like the FBI and DEA at the Department of Justice. Personally, looking to the needs of Iowa, I support increased funding for the Byrne Assistance Grants financed through offsetting reductions in other accounts within the bill. As reported by the full Committee, the bill sharply reduces funding for this program below last year's level. These funds are critical to ongoing efforts to fight illegal methamphetamine use in many States across the country. In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2862 and again commend Chairman Lewis and the Appropriations Committee on their steady work in bringing bills to the floor that comply with H. Con. Res. 95.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the measure before us, providing budget authority for programming by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and others. It provides for about 20 percent of total USDA budget authority. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am pleased to note that this bill is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. Overall spending in the bill is $29 million more than the 2005 enacted level and $22 million above the President's request. department of agriculture In most areas within USDA, appropriators ended up somewhere between the President's request and the 2005 enacted level. None of the President's initiatives to collect $178 million in new or increased user fees was taken up, making up the difference through spending reductions in some discretionary programs and through $1.4 billion in reductions in some mandatory programs authorized for the first time in the 2002 farm bill. The bill makes changes in various mandatory programs that reduce net budget authority by $1.4 billion. Specifically, it reduces budget authority by about 25 percent for a number of mandatory conservation programs and eliminates funding for a subset of agricultural research and rural development programs. While the use of one-year savers in mandatory programs to stay within the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation has become routine, the Agriculture Committee could change some of these same mandatory programs themselves in order to comply with the reconciliation instructions in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget resolution. food and drug administration H.R. 2744 provides $1.8 billion for the salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], an increase of $55.3 million, or 3.1 percent, above the 2005 enacted level and a decrease of $17.7 million below the President's request. Of the appropriated funds, $357 million is financed from on-going drug, device and animal drug user fees. Under provisions of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA will collect $305 million as user fees to offset part of the costs of prescription drug approval. This bill provides an increase of $12.4 million for food safety and counter-terrorism activities to ensure consumers are protected against intentional and accidental risks that threaten our food supply. H.R. 2744 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is exempt from budget limits. The bill does rescind $32 million in the unobligated balances of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. iowa concerns I am particularly pleased that this legislation contains critical funding for ag and food safety programs in my home state of Iowa. Specifically, I would like to commend the committee for funding the completion of the National Centers for Animal Health in Ames, Iowa, where vital research to keep our nation's food supply safe is being done everyday. In addition, this bill continues funding for the Agriculture-Based Industrial Lubricants (ABIL) program at the University of Northern Iowa in my Congressional district. The ABIL program continues to promote value-added and environmentally safe agriculture products. As we continue the appropriations season, I commend Chairman Lewis and our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for meeting the needs of the American public within the framework established by the budget resolution. In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2744.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, when the Appropriations Committee realigned its subcommittees earlier this year, one of the larger challenges fell to the measure we are considering today--the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The bill provides benefits, housing, and health care for our military troops and their families; and ensures that our veterans--who have given so much for our Nation-- continue to receive pensions, readjustment benefits, loans, and medical care. I am pleased to rise in full support of the bill the appropriators have crafted. Military Quality of Life In structure, H.R. 2528 adds considerably to the previous Military Construction bill by including the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Defense Health Program; the military personnel base allowance and housing accounts; the military facilities, sustainment, restoration, and modernization accounts; the military environmental restoration accounts; and a number of small related agencies. The bill is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, which Congress adopted as its fiscal blueprint on April 28th. It stays within the 302(b) allocation to the subcommittee, as provided by the full Appropriations Committee pursuant to the budget resolution. Consequently, it does not violate section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of the 302(b)s. [I should note that the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has recast the 2005 enacted levels into the new subcommittee structure for this year's appropriations bills, so we can make year-to-year comparisons. Also, please be aware that CBO's figures, which I am using, employ base figures and categories that may differ slightly from those published by the Appropriations Committee.] H.R. 2528 provides $53.5 billion to the Department of Defense [DoD]. Of that amount, $20 billion is for the Defense Health Program, which provides top-notch medical care to our service members and their families at little or no cost to them. This amount represents a slight increase over the President's request and an increase of $1.8 billion over the 2005 enacted level. This bill also funds the military construction and family housing accounts used by DoD to provide our service members and their families quality housing. The funds made available in this bill for base allowance and housing--$13.3 billion-- also ensure that those serving our country are able to afford to live in quality housing whether on or offbase. This represent an increase of $1.2 billion over the 2005 enacted level. H.R. 2528 provides $31.5 billion in discretionary funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. Most of this amount--$28.8 billion of it--is for the Veterans Health Administration, which provides medical care to our Nation's veterans, medical research, medical facilities, and medical administration. The largest component is medical care, which is funded at $21.0 billion, an increase of $745 million over the President's request and an increase of $1.1 billion, or 6 percent, over the 2005 enacted level. The bill does not include a medical care enrollment fee or an increase in prescription drug copayments. H.R. 2528 provides total discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs of $33.7 billion, an increase of $637 million above the President's request and an increase of $2.9 billion, or 9.5 percent, above the 2005 enacted level. H.R. 2528 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is exempt from budget limits. The bill contains no rescission of previously enacted discretionary BA. Iowa I would also like to acknowledge a specific provision that benefits the National Guard in my State. The measure includes $431,000 for planning and design of a field maintenance shop at Readiness Center in Iowa City. The Budget Resolution/Conclusion As I have noted before, the budget resolution provides a total allocation for discretionary appropriations of $843 billion in fiscal year 2006. This relatively tight spending level requires significant effort by the Appropriations Committee to set priorities and make choices. As we continue the appropriations season, I commend Chairman Lewis and our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for meeting the needs of the American public within the framework established by the budget resolution. In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2528.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2005 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act. This status report is current through May 23, 2005. Ther term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95, the conference report on the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2005 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates. The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal years 2005 through 2009. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which crates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2005 with the total of ``section 302(b)'' suballocations among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures reported by the Appropriations Committee that would breach its section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2006 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through May 23, 2005. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2006 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates. The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal years 2006 through 2010. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2006 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation as well as the 302(a) allocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2007 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills or amendments thereto that contain advance appropriations that are: (I) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the measure before us today--the appropriations act for Energy and Water Development--joins the early wave of discretionary spending bills pursuant to the recently adopted budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95). As the name suggests, this bill provides for the Nation's energy and water development needs, with funding for all of the Department of Energy, and select activities of the Departments of Defense and the Interior, including the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. While the government's overall energy strategy is now being discussed in a conference on H.R. 6, the bill before us today provides a vital additional component of the Nation's energy policies. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am pleased to note that this bill complies with the budget resolution, and also reflects a responsible set of budgetary choices. Although the Appropriations Committee provided more funding that the President in certain areas, they still achieved a modest but real reduction in total spending for this bill, compared with fiscal year 2005. Energy and Water Development H.R. 2419 provides $29.7 billion in appropriations for fiscal year 2006. This is $410 million, or 1.3 percent, below the fiscal year 2005 level, and equal to the President's request. The bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority in the budget resolution. The bill provides $23.8 billion in discretionary BA to the Department of Energy [DOE], a reduction of $390 million from the 2005 enacted level. Within the department, BA is reduced from the 2005 level by 2.6 percent for Environmental and Other Defense Activities ($203 million), and 4 percent for the National Nuclear Security Administration ($365 million). But for Energy Programs, the bill provides a slight increase of 1.3 percent, or $98 million. H.R. 2419 provides $661 million for the Yucca Mountain repository, an increase of $84 million above 2005 and $10 million over the President's request. Funding for the Department of the Interior totals $933 million and discretionary spending for the Bureau of Reclamation holds flat relative to 2005. For the Corps of Engineers, the committee provided $4.7 billion, or $396 million over the President's request, primarily through additional construction and operations and maintenance spending, which together make up two-thirds of total Corps of Engineers spending. Also, the Appropriations Committee rejected an initiative to directly fund the operations and maintenance costs through the Power Marketing Associations' revenues. H.R. 2419 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is exempt from budgetary limits. While the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006, H. Con. Res. 95, did allow for an advance appropriation in the Elk Hills account, the Committee on Appropriations provided for it with a current year appropriation. The bill also defers $257 million in previously appropriated funds for the Clean Coal Technology Initiative until fiscal year 2007, providing $257 million in BA savings for 2006, and an equal increase in 2007. The administration proposed a rescission of this amount. Additionally, the bill allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] to recover 90 percent of its budget authority through licensing and annual fees, less the appropriation derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund. This will recover a projected $581 million in fiscal year 2006 with remaining 10 percent, or $65 million, funded from the General Fund of the Treasury. In conclusion, I would like to commend Chairman Lewis and the Appropriations Committee on their steady work in bringing bills to the floor that comply with H. Con. Res. 95 and wish them continued success as they proceed through this appropriations season. I therefore express my support for H.R. 2419.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This measure is part of the first wave of appropriations bills to be considered under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, and provides for the resource management needs for our Nation, clearly a national priority. The bill, which is in compliance with H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget, provides appropriations for most of the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities, among others. interior, environment, and related agencies For the first time, the House Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies marked up a bill with their new jurisdiction, reflecting additional responsibility for all discretionary programs under the Environmental Protection Agency and losing some Energy Department programs previously under their jurisdiction. H.R. 2361 provides $26.1 billion in appropriations for fiscal year 2006, which is $653 million, or 2.2 percent, below the fiscal year 2005 level. The level is $432 million over the President's request. The bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution. This measure, like government spending on the whole, has been drawn up under a tighter-than-normal budget constraint. However, this does not mean that needed services are cut in a meaningful way. Two examples from the bill are useful in illustrating this point, one in firefighting through the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior, and the other in water programs for the EPA. Regarding firefighting, I would point out that the base we are using for comparison, had higher-than-normal spending due to a one-time appropriation of $500 million to be used as insurance in case regular fire fighting appropriations become exhausted. Excluding this one-time appropriation means that the measure before us is $153 million less than the 2005 level rather that $653 million less than 2005. Moreover, some of this one-time money is still available, and will remain available for obligation next fiscal year too for its intended use if regular funding becomes exhausted. In the water program area, the committee looked for ways to secure funding for EPA's Clean Water Program, a program mentioned even during our own budget resolution proceedings. I understand that GAO found over $100 million in expired EPA grants, contracts, and inter-agency agreements, and that the bill rescinds this money in order to fund an increase in the level of Clean Water Program funding to $850 million from the President's request of $730 million. While it maybe the case that the $100 million found in these accounts, some dating back to the 1980s, would never have been actually been spent, the savings constitute legitimate efforts under the Budget Act. I also note that because this account carries hundreds of millions of dollars in unobligated balances from year to year, the impact from budget reductions relative to the current fiscal year are not likely to result in reductions in community investments next fiscal year. H.R. 2361 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is exempt from budget limits. The bill reduces a National Park Service contract authority account by $30 million--an account not subject to annual appropriations--thereby offsetting discretionary spending through changes in a mandatory spending program. If this provision were stricken (because it constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill) the measure as reported would exceed its allocation under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. As we enter the appropriations season, I wish Chairman Lewis and our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the best in maintaining their admirable pace of bringing bills to the floor. In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2361.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the appropriations process for fiscal year 2006 and the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill in particular. This is the first appropriations bill to be considered under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution. The bill also provides for what we all agree is one of our Nation's highest priorities: protecting Americans at home. The budget resolution provides a total allocation for discretionary appropriations of $843 billion in fiscal year 2006. This represents a 0.8 percent reduction for fiscal year 2006 in total non-defense, non- homeland security spending. I recognize the challenge this poses to the Appropriations Committee. With respect to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, this is the first appropriations bill we are considering for fiscal year 2006, and the first to be reported by the Homeland Security subcommittee of the restructured Appropriations Committee. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, which Congress adopted as its fiscal blueprint on April 28. H.R. 2360 provides $30.8 billion in appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006, which is $1.1 billion below the fiscal year 2005 level. Excluding the $2.5 billion in one-time appropriations provided in fiscal year 2005 for Project BioShield, the bill actually represents a $1.4 billion, or 4.7 percent, increase in budget authority above last year's level and is $1.3 billion above the President's fiscal year 2006 request. The bill provides increases in border protection, immigration enforcement, first responders, transportation security, and science and technology broadly consistent with the President's request, but exceeds it largely because of the rejection of the Administration's proposed $1.7 billion increase in aviation security fees for the Transportation Security Administration. The bill's funding level is partly offset by slowing spending for the replacement of the Coast Guard fleet and by a reduction in non-defense, non-homeland security spending. With total fiscal year 2006 appropriations equal to its allocation, the bill conforms with the budget resolution. H.R. 2360 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is exempt from budget limits. The bill contains one rescission of $84 million in previously enacted discretionary BA for the Coast Guard; the same amount is appropriated for replacement or maintenance of the current patrol boat fleet. The bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays established in the budget resolution. As we enter the appropriations season, I wish Chairman Lewis and our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the best as they strive to meet the needs of the American public within the framework established by the budget resolution. In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2360.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the distinguished chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to just point out, because there has been some question, so let us get the facts. The budget calls for veterans increases; fiscal year 2005 will be $30 billion; fiscal year 2006, $31.8 billion. It is an increase of almost a billion dollars, or a 3.2 percent increase. That is an increase. So there may be some other facts on the floor, but let us look at the facts in the budget. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. This is veterans medical care before and after 1995, and that is what we are going to increase that beyond. I can understand when you want to put, you know, some kind of magical inflation number that you have just pulled out of the air and then make up a number. That is a different issue. The budget has an increase for veterans. They deserve it, and that is what we are going to pass. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a real leader on our side when it comes to Medicaid reform.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 248, I call up the conference report on 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.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes. Mr. Speaker, before I begin with the opening, let me just thank our staff. We have to make a lot of decisions around here, and we put together the policy and make the votes, but the staff makes it all come together in the document that we review today, as well as the work of the Committee on the Budget. I thank Jim Bates who is the majority staff director, who has done an excellent job this year, and Tom Kahn on the minority side who has done an excellent job. Both their staffs do a great job on behalf of the budget, the Senate staff in putting this together working with Chairman Gregg and the Senate Budget Committee, and our leadership staff that is here that works the floor and helps us put this all together. They do an excellent job. It is a big job putting together a budget. But if there was ever a time that we needed a plan and we need a budget, this is the time. We have seen what it is like in years past when we do not have budgets, when we are not able to come together. And yes, the House has been able to manage the process. We have been able to keep the line on discretionary spending, but we need to do more this year. We need a fiscal blueprint. We have enormous and quickly growing sets of challenges, and we do not have infinite resources with which to meet them. We can and will meet those challenges with a fiscal blueprint, with a budget. But in order to do that, we have to make some tough choices. We cannot say yes to everything. There is going to be a lot of debate today where Members say you did not say yes to this, you did not say yes to that, you did not give enough here, you did not give enough there, or you gave too much over here. That is the whole budget in a nutshell, is that no one is going to be perfectly satisfied with either how much you spend on one side or how much or how little you take from the other side of the ledger. No one will be satisfied, but it needs to be put in writing. It needs to be a fence around our process. We need a plan. I am extremely pleased that we have brought our plan and our conference report here today. It was not easy to get to this position. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader; the members of my committee; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the conference. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), my friend and colleague. He will remind us that he was not a party to this conference in the way that either one of us would have liked, but I would like to thank his partnership and the way we run the committee. Mr. Speaker, we have work to do, and I believe it can continue in a very positive way today if we pass this resolution. Last year we were able to reduce the deficit 20 percent. We need to continue that work. We need to continue the strength of this country. We need to continue the growth of our economy. We need to continue the restraint of spending for deficit reduction. These are our highest national priorities, and if these priorities are not met, none of the rest of the priorities will be met. All of the programs, all of the areas of government, none of them can happen if our economy is not strong, if our Nation is not strong, if our freedom is not protected, and if we do not have a fiscal blueprint to surround us. These are our fiscal priorities as we move forward. Let me talk about the conference report that we are bringing today. First, the budget fully accommodates the President's request for defense and homeland security. That is our number one job. None of the rest of the discussion matters if we do not protect the country. In addition, it provides for $50 billion in emergency supplementals looking forward, recognizing that we have a continuing obligation in our global war on terror. Second, the budget continues our successful economic policies, including tax relief, spending restraint, and deficit reduction to ensure a strong, sustained economic growth and job creation dynamic. This is why we are doing it, so that people can continue to find the opportunities to earn the money to take care of themselves and their families and their communities first before the IRS and the Federal Government takes a portion of that out here for the national priorities. People have an obligation to manage their affairs first, and we allow that here. Finally, the budget takes a critical, I think, next step, because we made the first step last year in reducing the unsustainable rate of Federal spending and our deficit. We take the next step this year to reduce that deficit. Last year we wrote and passed in this House and actually stuck to a budget that for the first time in a long time called for a little restraint in our discretionary spending. When the books were closed at the end of the year, we saw the deficit go down. The deficit went down. In fact, the reduction of the deficit last year alone was 20 percent, still way too high, a deficit still way too high by my count, by the count of my colleagues, by the President, and by the other body. But during a war, during a time of new national priorities such as homeland security, it is not unusual that we made a determination to borrow some money in the short term to shore that up. But we also have to continue the work that we started last year on reducing that deficit. This year this budget takes the necessary steps to get our spending back on a sustainable path and to continue to reduce that deficit. On the discretionary side, this budget will actually reduce the overall amount of nonsecurity discretionary spending. The nondefense discretionary spending will actually be reduced, something we have not seen done on this floor or in this government since Ronald Reagan was in town, the last time that we had an actual reduction in the nondefense discretionary. But more important than that, this budget begins the process of addressing the growth in the automatic spending, what we call mandatory spending, the spending that continues year after year unless we reform the programs that underlie that spending. And this year this is a reform budget. This is a budget that allows us to continue on the path that we need to head. Mandatory spending is growing out of control. We know it, Governors know it, the President knows it, the other body knows it, our committees know it. What we have not had is the mechanism to do something about it. Let me show how mandatory spending is growing. If we look at this chart, we will see that back in 1995, the automatic spending was almost half of the budget. Now it is over half, about 55 percent of the budget. And if we do nothing, it will eventually take two thirds of the budget by 2015 alone, meaning mandatory spending will crowd out things like national defense, homeland security, education, transportation, the environment, health care. A number of important issues that we need to be focusing on will be enveloped by the mandatory spending side of the ledger without reform. And these programs in many instances are plainly not working. I think of a senior citizen sitting in a hallway of a nursing home in Iowa and wondering whether or not that senior is getting the best quality care for the huge increases and the unsustainable growth that we find in Medicaid. And I do not see that being the case. Is the quality there? Is the program being delivered in the best possible way? And for that one instance and thousands of others that are out there we need to focus programs on doing a better job for the money that is put forth in order to meet the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens; children who are poor, people with disabilities, seniors who are either locked in poverty or unable to meet their needs. We have got to handle the mandatory growth in this budget and do so in a way that provides the reform to make sure that the needs of the people that these programs were intended to meet, that those needs are met. And that is the reason that we bring this budget forth. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the Medicaid program. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, we stand for growing the economy; and to speak about that, let me yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a conferee and a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our distinguished majority leader.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 95, the conference report on the budget just passed.