Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 376, I am transmitting this document titled ``Guidelines for the Application of Provisions Designated as Emergencies, Contingency Operations, or Unanticipated Defense-related Operations.'' It sets forth an explicit explanation of the characteristics of spending that is appropriately exempted from the enforcement controls of the Congressional Budget Act. This report is required under the terms of House Concurrent Resolution 376, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House for fiscal year 2007, deemed in force under the provisions of House Resolution 818. Guidelines for Application of Provisions Designated as Emergencies, Contingency Operations, or Unanticipated Defense-Related Operations Summary The fiscal year 2007 budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 376, sets forth three categories of spending that are treated by Congress under special procedures outside the normal budget process: domestic emergencies, defense-related emergencies, and contingency operations directly related to the global war on terrorism. The first of these, domestic emergencies, has a special reserve fund to finance emergency spending priorities, such as unforeseen natural disasters that tend to occur nearly every year. The remaining two categories-- defense-related emergencies and terror-related response contingency operations--are exempted from normal controls due to the special nature of each. Although Congress did not reach a conference agreement on the budget resolution, the House did deem the House-passed resolution to be in force for all purposes of the Congressional Budget Act. The general definition of an emergency, as spelled out in the budget resolution, is not new: its terms have long been employed by the administration's Office of Management and Budget [OMB], and have been carried in previous budget resolutions. What is new is the enhanced discipline, called for by the resolution, in applying these terms to the three special categories of spending cited above. Section 503 of the resolution includes the following mandate: ``In the House, as soon as practicable after the adoption of this resolution, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall, after consultation with the chairmen of the applicable committees, and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, prepare guidelines for application of the definition of an emergency and publish such guidelines in the Congressional Record, and may issue any committee print from the Committee on the Budget for this or other purposes.'' This discussion, therefore, provides guidelines for the application of these spending categories. Definition and General Guidelines for Emergency Spending Section 502 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 establishes in general terms the definition of spending that is appropriately designated as an emergency. Although these guidelines may be used to apply to ``unanticipated'' defense-related emergencies, they aim principally to help determine what domestic priorities are eligible to be funded through the reserve fund established by the budget resolution, and to define an ``emergency'' in general. The term ``emergency'' is important because any spending so designated escapes the regular controls applicable to all other spending. But the definition, and the guidelines below, are not intended to judge the policy importance of any given emergency spending; that is for the Appropriations Committee and the Congress in general to determine. It is rather to identify general characteristics of such spending that identifies it as meriting special procedures exempting it from the normal congressional budget process. There are two essential components to the application of this designation: that an ``emergency'' concerns a threat to life, property, or national security; and that the event was ``unanticipated.'' The definition also asserts that funding in response to an emergency should be temporary in nature. The applicable text in the resolution fleshes out these terms, and is largely self-explanatory. It reads as follows: ``(1) The term `emergency' means a situation that-- ``(A) requires new budget authority and outlays (or new budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom) for the prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or property, or a threat to national security; and ``(B) is unanticipated. ``(2) The term `unanticipated' means that the underlying situation is-- ``(A) Sudden, which means quickly coming into being or not building up over time; ``(B) Urgent, which means a pressing and compelling need requiring immediate action; ``(C) Unforeseen, which means not predicted or anticipated as an emerging need; and ``(D) Temporary, which means not of a permanent duration.'' An example of ``emergency'' spending that was ``unanticipated'' was the major California earthquake of January 1993. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-211, 12 February 1994). The measure provided $376.1 million to programs of the Department of Agriculture, such as for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations. In contrast, there were attempts to declare the funding for the 2000 Census required by the Constitution as an emergency. This clearly would have been an abuse of the designation: The census has been required every ten years for over two centuries. An example of ``urgent'' funding needs appeared in the response to Hurricanes Fran and Hortense and other disasters, Public Law 104-208. The measure provided $88 million for U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] flood assistance programs, including $63 million for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, and $25 million for the Emergency Conservation Program. Had the funding been delayed until the next budget cycle, the consequences of the hurricanes would have been irreparable, in Congress's judgment. The term ``unforeseen'' applies to funding for activities that could not be anticipated as an emerging need and are over and above the aggregate level of anticipated emergencies that are normally estimated in advance. A good example of an unforeseen emergency is the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, D.C. on 11 September 2001. The term ``temporary'' means that emergency spending should not in general be for multiple fiscal years or in general be for permanent new entitlements. For example, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-234, 15 June 2006) included $55 million for USDA to repair its own damaged facilities. Such spending was to respond to Hurricane Katrina and was for a purpose that was not recurring--and was directly related to the property destruction caused by the hurricane. Emergencies are divided into three categories: nondefense- related, defense-related, and spending related to the Global War on Terrorism. These categories are described at length below, but a general summary is as follows: Nondefense-related emergencies are chiefly, but not always, associated with natural disasters such as hurricanes, droughts, or earthquakes. The resolution creates a new reserve fund to anticipate such events. The fund and its application are further discussed below. Defense-related spending, if unanticipated, is, in effect, excepted from the Congressional budget process. This is established in section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376. Budget authority needed for the ``Global War on Terrorism'' includes spending for the security of the United States and for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The emergency designation should only be used as follows: The designation should be used when preparing appropriations language and should be specific to each appropriation account for which the designation will be used. If not designated specifically as emergency under Section 402 or 501 of the Budget Resolution, the appropriation will be scored against the subcommittee's 302(b) discretionary budget totals for the year. The designation is not to be used as a relief valve for regular appropriations to circumvent 302 allocations. In other words, this designation should not be used to artificially deflate regular budget requests. It is to be used for unknowns. If a known program requires known funding at the time of the regular appropriations, it should not be treated as an emergency. The appropriations subcommittee will designate funding as emergency when identifying the appropriation. The President may request the funds as emergency or as contingent emergency, but that request is non-binding and the subcommittees may appropriate funds with or without the designation as is appropriate. The Office of Management and Budget is the arbiter of what is or is not designated as an emergency in the request. OMB's guidance in its Circular A-11 to the Agencies on this matter is fairly loose and mentions emergencies only in the context of supplemental requests. The guidance lists an ``emergency'' as one of the rationales for a supplemental stating that a supplemental is appropriate when: An unforeseen emergency situation occurs (e.g., natural disaster requiring expenditures for the preservation of life or property). The emergency designation is legislative language that falls within the primary jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. In addition, the Budget Committee enforces the allocation of spending authority given to each Congressional Committee. If the Appropriations Committee includes language designating a provision of spending as an emergency, the Budget Committee adjusts this general allocation by an equal amount. Because this does not automatically cause a corresponding increase in the suballocations that the Appropriations Committee distributes to each of its subcommittees (and which must equal the general allocation), it must act to revise that suballocation for a bill or amendment to escape a point of order under 302(f) of the Budget Act which prohibits the consideration of measures breaching the permissible levels of spending. The Budget Committee does not, as a matter of course, validate that all funds designated emergency meet the criteria outlined above for amounts within the nondefense reserve fund--the adjustments are automatic once the designation is placed in the legislative text. Once the reserve fund is exhausted, and adjustments are required above the amount set aside for nondefense emergencies ($6.45 billion for fiscal year 2007), the committee must meet in open session to consider whether the additional amounts designated should be accommodated by an additional adjustment in the allocation to the Appropriations Committee. In the meeting, the amount by which the allocation should be raised is open for amendment--though it is not in order to raise the amount above the level designated as an emergency in the bill to be considered on the floor of the House. Nondefense Emergency Reserve Fund Section 501 of the budget resolution creates an emergency reserve fund that effectively caps the overall amount that can be used for nondefense domestic emergencies (such as natural disasters). Funding beyond the reserve amount may be provided only if the Budget Committee meets and approves an increase in the cap. The concept of the emergency reserve fund is not unlike a colloquial ``rainy-day fund.'' It does not attempt to predict any specific natural disaster. Instead, it recognizes that natural disasters of some kind--whether hurricanes, forest fires, floods, or others--occur in the United States nearly every year; the reserve sets aside an amount of funding in advance to address such needs, should they arise. The amount in the fund is based on historical experience. It does not assume to anticipate extraordinary disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina; it would be impractical and impracticable to set aside funds of that magnitude for events that are so rare. Guidelines for Budget Authority for the Global War on Terrorism This section (section 402) exempts from the Congressional Budget Act and its enforcement provisions only those spending provisions that meet the following definitions: (a) General contingency operation: A provision designated as a contingency operation related to the global war on terrorism may be either: Defense-related; or Nondefense-related. (b) Defense-related contingency operation: A provision designated as a defense-related contingency operation: May be for spending directly related to an immediate response to a terrorist attack by the Department of Defense, whether domestic or international; May be for spending directly related to the costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom; May be for spending that also meets the definition of an ``unanticipated defense-related operation'' described in this committee print; May not be for spending for routine military expenditures not specifically caused by or directly related to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. It is not appropriate to use the designation to fund special interest projects that could be addressed in the normal appropriation process. (c) Nondefense-related contingency operation: A spending provision designated as a nondefense-related contingency operation: May be for any immediate nondefense response to a terrorist attack, whether domestic or international; May not be for nondefense-related spending predominantly required to respond to unanticipated criminal law enforcement needs, except for nondefense terrorism-related spending; May not be used to offset spending on projects or earmarks that are anticipated and should be in regular spending bills. (d) Terrorism-related spending: Both defense and nondefense ``terrorism-related spending'' includes, but is not limited to, immediate responses to terrorist attacks carried out by individual terrorists or terrorist organizations to either domestic or international interests of the United States [or other applicable nation-states or international organizations]. Terrorism-related spending does not include legislative or appropriations provisions intended to reduce, prevent or mitigate future terrorist attacks that could adequately be addressed in the normal authorizing and appropriations process (that is unless the measure in question is in response to a need that has arisen subsequent to the passage of the budget resolution). (f) Terrorist attack: A ``terrorist attack'' is the use or threatened use of force or violence to civilian or military persons, buildings, installations or other property [people or property] carried out by an individual or organization; and Is not carried out by an internationally recognized nation- state; May be the result of state-sponsored terrorism. Further Guidelines for the Designation of Unanticipated Defense-Related Operations Unanticipated Defense-related spending may be: For defense facilities damaged by natural disasters, or For a response to natural disasters that entails the use of military resources; or For all costs associated with the national defense that can not be accommodated through the normal appropriations process. Other General Definitions (a) Defense-related spending: ``Defense-related'' means spending from provisions from accounts within function 050-- National Defense. (b) Nondefense-related spending: ``Nondefense-related'' means spending from provisions from accounts not within function 050--National Defense. (c) Directly related: ``Directly related'' means the direct relation between the spending designated under this section and the response to an activity that would not be necessary were general contingency operations as described in this committee print not required. For instance crop and livestock disaster assistance should not be available to those not directly affected by the disaster but who happen to live in the same geographic region that was generally impacted.

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 2007 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 401 and 501 of H. Con. Res. 376, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 818. This status report is current through November 8, 2006. 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 by H. Con. Res. 376. 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 2007 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 376 for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal years 2007 through 2011. ``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 2007 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. The fourth table gives the current level for 2008 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 376. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills 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. The fifth table provides the current level of the nondefense reserve fund for emergencies established by section 501 of H. Con. Res 376. The table is required by section 505 of the budget resolution, and is needed to determine whether an increase in the reserve fund, allocations and aggregates will be necessary for any pending legislation that contains emergency-designated discretionary budget authority.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child Custody Protection Act (S. 403). This important legislation protects our children by imposing stiff penalties on adults who evade State parental consent laws to transport a minor across State lines for the sole purpose of having an abortion. I believe we must protect our children from being exploited or coerced into having an abortion and reaffirm the rights of parents to be involved in the important decisions of their lives. We currently require parental consent forms for field trips, sports and other activities. It's only common-sense that these important laws are not circumvented for the purpose of performing an abortion. With over 50 percent of States having parental consent laws on the books, I believe it is imperative the Child Custody Protection Act become law to protect those who may not be able to protect themselves from harm as well as to ensure that these important state laws are respected.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act. This legislation takes a commonsense approach to reduce nutrient and sediment loss in the Upper Mississippi watershed by coordinating existing public and private water monitoring initiatives. I believe that such a partnership promotes the river's health and is beneficial the communities and people of eastern Iowa. Most of the farm families I represent live and make their living either along the Mississippi, or its many tributaries. Soil erosion is a problem for farmers by reducing long-term sustainability and income potential of their acres. It is my understanding that farmers in the Upper Mississippi River Basin lose more than $300 million annually in applied nitrogen to soil erosion. In addition, sediment fills the main shipping channel of the Mississippi that family farmers depend on to get their commodities to markets. Farmers live close to the land, and are committed to being good stewards. This legislation helps farmers and local conservation groups assess where problems are occurring in their watershed, and how to efficiently and effectively solve the problem. I believe this legislation is beneficial in mending our environment along the river, and better protecting it in the future. Sediment is a threat to the Mississippi's fish, birds, and other wildlife by filling wetlands. Sediment reduces wetlands' ability to be an adequate water filter and provide habitat to the creatures that live all along the Mississippi River. It is estimated that the Upper Mississippi contributes 31 percent of the nitrogen that impairs the water quality of the Lower Mississippi basin. Part of the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge is in my district. I believe this refuge is an important treasure for Iowa. What makes this area special is, of course, the unique wildlife that lives there. This legislation helps promote wildlife by monitoring and computer modeling data to ensure scientifically sound and cost-effective decisions in promoting water quality. Additionally, a healthy Mississippi River is very important to the communities of eastern Iowa. The Mississippi is recognized throughout the United States and abroad as ``America's River''. The Quad Cities area is a popular destination of international travelers who want to see and touch the water. For the residents of the Quad Cities area, the riverfront is the center of social life, with a historic district, baseball diamond, and several annually held festivals. The City of Dubuque boasts over one million visitors thanks to the Mississippi. This community has chosen to make its story of the river the cornerstone of its urban renewal with a million dollar investment in the revitalization of the riverfront. The America's River project and historic Port of Dubuque represent the community's dedication to growing its tourism industry. Madam Speaker, the Upper Mississippi's health and water quality essential to growing the economies of the larger river cities of Bettendorf, Davenport, Clinton, and Dubuque, and the picturesque river towns of Guttenberg, LeClair, Bellevue, and Marquette. All of these communities, along with farmers and conservationists, have invested much time and effort in promoting a clean river. I believe this legislation helps to insure these investments by coordinating the many interests of those living in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Accordingly, I am a proud sponsor of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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 2007 and for the 5-year period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 401 and 501 of H. Con. Res. 376, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 818. This status report is current through September 1, 2006. 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 by H. Con. Res. 376. 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 2007 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 376 for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal years 2007 through 2011. ``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 2007 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. The fourth table gives the current level for 2008 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 376. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills 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. The fifth table provides the current level of the nondefense reserve fund for emergencies established by section 501 of H. Con. Res 376. The table is required by section 505 of the budget resolution, and is needed to determine whether an increase in the reserve fund, allocations and aggregates will be necessary for any pending legislation that contains emergency-designated discretionary budget authority.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my support for today's resolution (H. Res. 921) condemning attacks against Israel. Israel is a friend of the United States and a strong ally in the War on Terror. They have every right to defend themselves against brutal terrorists who attack innocent civilians and bomb their cities. Terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah rely on violence, fear, and terror to spread religious fanaticism and advance their political agenda. We will continue to defend the cause of freedom and stand up to evil terrorist regimes wherever they exist. Peace in the Middle East will not be possible until there is a permanent end to the violence by these terrorist groups and the countries that sponsor them. Madam Speaker, I strongly support today's resolution. By taking action, the House of Representatives is sending an important message: That we support our friends in Israel and we condemn the state sponsors of recent terrorist acts.

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 2007 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2007 through 2011. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 401 and 501 of H. Con. Res. 376, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 818. This status report is current through June 23, 2006. 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 by H. Con. Res. 376. 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 2007 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 376 for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal years 2007 through 2011. ``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 2007 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. The fourth table gives the current level for 2008 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 376. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills 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. The fifth table provides the current level of the nondefense reserve fund for emergencies established by section 501 of H. Con. Res 376. The table is required by section 505 of the budget resolution, and is needed to determine whether an increase in the reserve fund, allocations and aggregates will be necessary for any pending legislation that contains emergency-designated discretionary budget authority.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the chief sponsor of the bill and a member of the Budget Committee, be allowed to control the balance of my time after I speak and also be authorized to yield blocks of time to other speakers.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the most important obligations Congress has to be good stewards of the tax dollars is to spend it wisely, to spend it prudently, and with the Nation's best interests in mind. I think it is fair to say honoring this obligation is as important today, if not more so, than probably any time in our history. We have made progress over the past few years in regaining control of our nonsecurity and nonemergency spending, both on the appropriations side of the budget as well as on the enormous entitlement programs. We are going to continue to build on those efforts. With economic growth in our country and the economy, with growth of jobs, now 5 million and counting, the economy is growing. Revenues are coming into the Treasury. We are holding down spending and reforming government, and the good news is the deficit is coming down. Each and every day on the floor we bring appropriations bills from the great committee under the leadership of Jerry Lewis to continue that trend that we have started, and that is controlling spending, rooting out all waste, fraud and abuse. That committee is doing an excellent job, and I commend them. But I hear criticism, and I think many Members do, when we go back home to talk to our constituents, whether it is in Iowa where I live or across the country, that they really are tired of what they hear about when it comes to this earmark or special-interest spending that goes on that sometimes only benefits a very few people. They also tend to surprise a lot of Members in the final conference reports that come through on a number of bills, not just the appropriation bills, but across the gamut of the work Congress does. We all know the game; and frankly, most of us play the game. Members take the opportunity to slip in a special-interest goodie for their district into these enormous spending bills; and rarely, if ever, do we take the opportunity to look at each one of those projects that affects other people's districts. As a result, we don't get to look at all of the so-called pork-barrel spending that oftentimes goes into these projects. We all know full well that many of these so-called extras or extra spending would really never survive if it was subjected to all 435 of us providing our scrutiny. But we also know that no one person can vote against these items because doing so would mean you would have to vote against the entire bill, most of which is for legitimate purposes. So we are never going to completely eliminate the appetite on both sides of the aisle for tacking onto these large bills these special-interest projects. But what we can do and what we continue to try and do today is reform the process and minimize the impact of these wasteful items on the taxpayer. That brings us to the bill at hand. The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) provides an additional effective tool for reducing wasteful spending. It is endorsed, it is supported, it is cosponsored by a bipartisan majority of this House, men and women on both sides of the aisle, that for years on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan way have been working not only to reform the budget process, but to figure out ways to adopt a so-called line item veto. Presidents, for time immemorial, have chided Congress for not working on this. Our President today has done the same. We need to get this done. We need to put it into law. We need to try it with a sunset attached in order to make sure that we can move this down the field and reform wasteful spending. Don't use the excuse that this is not a perfect bill. Don't use the excuse that this is somehow the wrong time. That's an excuse in an election year when you don't want to go home and explain to your voters why every press release you said you were for it, why every time you cosponsored it, why every time you voted for it, except this time. This time somehow it is not perfect; this time somehow it is political; this time the timing just doesn't quite seem right. Those are not excuses that will hold water with the constituents back home. We need to take this opportunity to do what is right and move the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 886, I call up the bill (H.R. 4890) to amend the Congressional and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions of budget authority, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 5638, the bill just passed.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to have this debate. I first of all want to say how proud I am of our brave soldiers deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other regions of the world. Throughout our history, our freedom and our way of life have been preserved by the grave sacrifices made by the men and women of our military. We cannot thank them enough for their service. I want to specifically thank the many Reserve and National Guard units from my home state of Iowa serving overseas. Throughout the War on Terror, Iowa has had one of the highest overseas deployment rates of any state. Recently, I had the opportunity to welcome back a battalion of Marine reservists from Waterloo, Iowa, in my district. I was very impressed by the brave soldiers of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 14th Marines who risked their lives conducting vital security operations throughout the Al Anbar province of Iraq in the dangerous areas of Ramadi, Al Asad and Falluja. They left their families and loved ones behind to serve a cause greater than themselves--the cause of freedom. Mr. Speaker, our mission in Iraq is a vital part of the Global War on Terror. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was a difficult but necessary step to eliminate the threat that his regime had posed for so long to the United States and the international community. We should take this opportunity to reflect on our many accomplishments in Iraq over the past three years. Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is over, his sons have been killed, and just last week we learned the good news that the leader of the Iraqi insurgency, the brutal terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, has been eliminated. The Iraqi people have taken historic strides towards establishing a free and stable democracy. They have participated in free elections for the first time, drafted a new constitution, and newly elected Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Miliki just announced the formation of his cabinet. In addition, the Iraqi security forces continue to increase in number and have taken a larger role in the defense their country. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is necessary to stay the course and follow the path to a lasting peace in Iraq. We will continue to provide for our troops and ensure that they have the best training, equipment, and technology available. And we must not waver in our commitment to win the Global War on Terror and protect our homeland from brutal terrorists who wish to attack our homeland and our very way of life.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. This measure is the first appropriations bill to be considered for fiscal year 2007, and has reached the floor one day after this House passed its budget resolution for the coming year. As such, the procedure for bringing up the measure deserves a brief explanation. Although the House and Senate have passed their respective budget resolutions, a final conference agreement on the budget has not been completed. Therefore, to proceed with the consideration of 2007 appropriations measures, the House has agreed in effect to ratify the levels in the House-passed budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 376) as the ones to be enforced in the House. This second confirmation of those levels was included in the rule for consideration of this bill (H. Res. 818). With the adoption of the rule, the budgetary levels established under the budget resolution will be enforced in the House as if the resolution were a conference report. More specifically, the appropriations bills will be limited to the budget resolution levels of $873 billion; and any emergency spending will be subject to the procedures established in the budget resolution House-passed budget resolution. This bill provides new budget authority [BA] equal to the subcommittee allocation, so is in compliance with the Budget Act provisions regarding consideration of appropriations measures in excess of the suballocation. Further, because this is the first bill considered under the budget resolution, it does not cause a breach of the budgetary aggregates, which would violate the Budget Act. This measure provides for the resource management needs for our Nation, clearly a national priority. The bill, which is in compliance with H. Con. Res. 376, 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 H.R. 5386 provides $25.9 billion in appropriations for fiscal year 2007, which is $4 million, or less than one percent, below the fiscal year 2006 level. The level is $411 million over the President's request. The bill complies with section 302(t) 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. H.R. 5386 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. The contract authority allows the National Park Service to enter in to contracts to purchase lands under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. 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. The second change in mandatory programs reduces the Coastal Impact Assistance Fund by 3 percent from 2007 to 2010 ($9 million each year) and spends the money on the Mineral Management Service's Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management Account. The Coastal Impact Assistance fund provides infrastructure and environmental remediation grants to states with oil and/or gas production on Outer Continental Shelf waters adjoining their borders. As a result, transfers to states under the Coastal Impact Fund reduced by an equal amount. 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. 5386.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and under that reservation, I want to thank the gentleman for his explanation. Just so I understand, I believe, and for Members' clarification too, what the gentleman from South Carolina is doing is basically matching the amount of money that we have set aside in our emergency reserve fund to begin this process to actually plan for and budget for emergencies. We are setting aside $6.45 billion for the first time ever to actually plan for emergencies. And what the gentleman from South Carolina is doing is he is matching that. The only thing I observe is that it is just a dollar amount. There is no procedure that you are adding to your amendment. In other words, there is no definition of an emergency; there is no reserve fund that specifically says this is for emergencies. There is no criteria for emergencies, just the amount of money is set aside.

Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the gentleman. We will have more discussion about this during the debate on his amendment. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent to yield half the time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, Mr. Chairman, it is my role and responsibility as the chairman of the Budget Committee to draft and defend the majority budget. I have done so. And that is the base resolution that we are considering tonight, to which the Republican Study Committee has provided an opportunity to look into the future and see what is possible. I oppose it, respectfully. And while there is enough of it that is worthy of discussion and worthy of support, it is my job, as I say, to defend and to pass the majority budget, and we will do so later on. But let me just touch on some things that I think are important as you consider not only the underlying bill, but also what the Republican Study Committee has done. First of all, the members of the Republican Study Committee clearly have learned the lessons of the 1990s and the effort that we made to balance the budget, and there were three of them. And let me suggest that those three lessons that we learned, that I certainly learned as a member of the Budget Committee, as a Member of Congress looking at the challenges that we faced, the first lesson was that we needed to grow the economy. That was clear. And we did so. The economy grew by leaps and bounds, and it brought revenue into the Treasury like never before. We cut the capital gains tax, and it created opportunities, it created jobs, and it created new businesses. As a result, it created new revenue to the Treasury. Second, the lesson was if you control spending, if you slow things down, even to a freeze level, that that can help you gain the traction to get back to fiscal responsibility. But the most important lesson, I believe, of the 1990s exercise of going through the Contract with America budget, as my friend from Texas suggested, and so many other budgets during those years that were successful, it was that we reformed government; that we were constantly weeding the garden looking for opportunities to make changes, looking for opportunities to deliver the product of government, the services of government in a more effective and efficient way. I realize that there will be a lot of vitriol, of people coming forward saying you must hate this group or you must hate this person or you don't care about this. I would never cast that aspersion on anybody in this body. I say that very seriously. There is nobody who could get elected to this body by being that unfeeling and uncaring about the people that they serve and the people that elect them. It is just not possible. So to say those kinds of things and to measure it based on the size of the wallet that the Federal Government is willing to throw at any problem is just, I believe, a ridiculous proposition. We can disagree on the method to solve problems, on the ways that we will meet challenges, but to come to the floor and suggest that just because you want to reform a program that has operated the same way for 20 years is because somehow you don't care, that is just simply not what either the RSC is trying to suggest in the budget they are proposing or that we are suggesting in the underlying budget. We believe it is time, and that the time should always be present to reform government and to look for ways to use tax dollars wisely and to deliver a better product or service to the people that we are trying to help. That is what the RSC budget does. Now, it does so at a time that we have other challenges. Obviously, we have many unexpected expenses that came up as a result of a war, as a result of 9/11, as a result of homeland security, as a result of immigration challenges, and as a result of Katrina, the hurricane. We have so many challenges that our budgets have had to face, and I believe we have balanced them as well as possible. So while the RSC budget may go too far for a majority of people in the House of Representatives tonight, it does push the envelope forward and say we should always lean forward when it comes to reforming government. We should always be willing to lean forward and to support taxpayers and the job that they do, all taxpayers. And that is what the RSC budget does. I oppose it, respectfully, because I believe we need to support a majority budget to put the kind of fence, the fiscal fence, around the job we need to do here tonight and the rest of the year. But it is a good work product, worthy of our respect, if for no other reason because it points us in the constant direction of reform that this institution and our Federal Government must get serious about if we will meet the challenges that our kids and grandkids are going to need to deal with in the future.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, back in 1995 as a brand new member of the Budget Committee, we did go through the exercise of balancing the budget and putting a plan together that actually accomplished that. We thought it was going to take, I think at the time, 7 years. We got it done in 5 years as a result of a number of advantages and opportunities that were happening at the time. Certainly the budget in 1995 was not written during a recession, it was not written during a war, it was not written during an attack on our homeland, it was not written during one of the greatest natural disasters that our country has ever witnessed in Hurricane Katrina. Certainly the challenges we face today are different than 1995, and the opportunities that we have today are certainly different than they were in 1995. But the one thing I like about this budget, even though I am going to oppose the amendment, is that what my friend from Texas, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Pence from Indiana and so many of the very responsible members of the Republican Study Committee who have put together a detailed plan, is that they are blazing the trail. They are showing us how. We may not get there today, as my friend from Iowa said, and I know for sure he can write a budget that can balance by tonight, or I am pretty sure. I am sure there are a lot of Members who could do that. But we are not writing the perfect budget tonight. That is not possible. We are writing a majority budget. We are writing a budget that can get 218 votes. So if this budget does not get 218 votes because there are Members who believe that it goes too far too fast, let us not forget the principles, though, that it lays out, that we need to consider as we write any budget, and that is, number one, we must continue to grow the economy. That is lesson number one of the 1990s and the first historic balanced budget in a generation. Number two, we have got to control spending. What the underlying budget does is it basically freezes domestic spending while we fight this global war on terror and while we have men and women in the field. Third, during the nineties, particularly with welfare reform, that we had to drag President Clinton kicking and screaming to sign after he vetoed it twice, is that we must reform government programs and entitlements, constantly looking for better ways to deliver government products and services in the best way possible to the taxpayers of America. This is what this budget attempts to do. The underlying budget will accomplish that. We ask for its support. I respectfully ask that Members do not support the RSC budget, but that we take that lesson as a way to point us toward better fiscal responsibility in the future and always be willing to blaze that trail toward more discipline, more responsibility and more reform.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, you know it is interesting that the distinguished minority whip indicated that all of the spending has been Republican spending in the last 6 years. Mr. Chairman, I had a chance to go and check the gentlemen's Website, and, interestingly enough, he takes credit for spending. He voted for spending. He got projects for Maryland. Is not this interesting? Well, I think you may need to change your press release, I would say to the gentlemen. Maybe these are Republican projects that we provided the fine people of Maryland that you take credit for on your Website. No, I think what is really going on here is that there is a lot of finger pointing. There is a lot of interesting partisanship with regard to spending tonight, because the gentleman comes to the floor and says it is all our spending and it is all our fault, and yet the gentleman is the same gentleman on the Appropriations Committee who rolled out most of these bills, who takes credit for most of the projects, who voted for final passage in the conference reports on most of those bills as they move through the process. And so to blame us for spending I think is a little bit ridiculous. Let me take the second one. He blames us for Katrina. I think that was a hurricane; I don't think it was a partisan issue. And instead of doing something about it in your budget, we actually put a reserve fund to plan for hurricanes, to plan for emergencies, to plan for natural disasters, the first time we have ever done this as a Congress. Not when the gentleman was in control in the majority. We have done this. We learned our lessons from Katrina. We are going to plan for natural disasters. We believe it is high time that we do that. So the gentleman comes to the floor and blames us. No, he blamed the President for Katrina, and then does nothing about it in his budget. One final point. For the gentleman to say on the floor tonight that we cut too much on the one hand and that we provide too much tax relief on the other, there is only one plan that solves both and that is the Spratt Democrat substitute, and that is a massive tax increase on America. It is a secret, no one wants to talk about it; it is in the plan that they have rolled out. But the only way you deal with your huge increases of spending and your huge reductions in the tax relief policy that has been put out there to grow our economy is to increase taxes. That is the only way. So I would say to the gentleman that he has certainly laid out a fine argument, but his own Web site demonstrates that I think he has a lot of credit that he can take for the challenges that this budget and this deficit and this fiscal situation have caused.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, we reserve to close.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, first let me say thank you to my friend Mr. Spratt. I liked the first part of his speech a little bit better than the last part, but I do thank him for his friendship, for his professionalism. There is nobody in the House of Representatives that knows more about the budget than he does, and he has been a worthy partner and friend in this effort. I want to thank him for that. Also I want to thank my committee members and the staff that worked so hard to put together this product. When it comes right down to it, as Mr. Spratt said, this is, I suppose, a document with numbers on it. There is no such thing as a perfect budget, only the budget that gets 218 votes. If I wrote the budget for the budget that I personally wanted, it might look a little differently. We have seen substitute opportunities tonight that did not quite get the votes. We need to pass a budget that gets the votes. That may not be perfect to fit everybody's idea of exactly what the priorities are, but what we in a democracy can agree is the right direction. So to close on our side, I would like to recognize and yield the balance of our time to our friend and the Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 376.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me acknowledge and welcome so many of our former colleagues back to the House Chamber here today. We welcome you. We thank you for your many years of service, and we look forward to the opportunity to renew old friendships. Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome our guest chaplain here today, Don Borling, who is the pastor of All Saints Lutheran Church in Orland Park, Illinois. He has been the pastor there for over 30 years. You might wonder why a guy from Iowa is introducing a minister from Illinois. Well, when I went to high school there, this was my home church. It is still my parents' home church. Don has been a good friend for many years. It is a pleasure to be able to welcome him and his wife, Jude; his son, Quinton; and his extended family who are here today. For many years Don has taught me and so many members of our church on the south side of the Chicagoland area about the living God that is with us here today, that is in our hearts, in our minds, is in the great moments of a Chamber like this where we come together with the spotlight of history and the television cameras, but also the kind of God that is there in the small moments, when no one is watching and when it really matters. He has taught us not only about the God that we worship on Sundays but the God that needs to be there every day, Monday through Saturday, in our lives. He has been a minister to me; but he has also been a mentor, he has been a brother, he has been a friend. We welcome Pastor Don Borling and his family, and we thank him for opening our House today in prayer.