Floor Statements

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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

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

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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. 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. Speaker, how much time remains?

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

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. 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.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting motion to instruct conferees. First of all, I am happy that we are at the point in time where we are able to go to the conference with the other body and complete our work on the Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2006. This is never an easy road to travel when you are trying to accomplish so much, when you are trying to accomplish reforms in some very challenged programs that by anyone's estimation are unsustainable and are growing beyond the means not only of the Federal Government to fund but also State governments to fund.

It is always difficult when you have different ideas from different chairmen, different bodies, different leaders, different parties who want to come forward and make their mark on exactly what that spending blueprint should be. But I would like to acknowledge that I think we are all happy we are finally getting to a conference and the ability to work out our differences.

As such, I look at this motion to instruct conferees, and I am wondering what the controversy is. All of what the gentlewoman just said are comments that my colleagues on both sides, whether you are Republican or Democrat, have made throughout the entire debate over the budget.

We have an unsustainable program called Medicaid which is not serving the most vulnerable people in our society to the fullest extent that it should or that it must in order to meet not only the obligations that we have entrusted in the program but also to make sure that it is sustainable, not only in the short run of our budget, but also long term in our overall fiscal situation that our country faces and that many of our States face. So as I read the motion to instruct conferees, I am puzzled by what the controversy is.

It says we should recede to the following findings. Those findings are that Medicaid provides essential health care and long-term care services to more than 50 million low-income children, pregnant women, parents, probably grandparents as well and great grandparents of many of ours, individuals with disabilities and senior citizens; and that, B, Medicaid is a Federal guarantee that ensures the most vulnerable will have access to most needed medical services.

We all agree. There is nobody here that disagrees with that. That is what the program was set up for; and that is the reason why we are so intent on reforming it, so that it continues to meet that mission and continues to deliver quality health care services for our parents and our grandparents, children who may be of low-income families and people with disabilities and senior citizens. It is a guarantee. It is something that we all believe in. We are here to help people who cannot help themselves.

Unfortunately, this program in many instances in its current state, 40 years old now, you might not be surprised to hear that it needs a little bit of work, it needs a little bit of reforming. The Governors have figured that out, and they have come to Washington with proposals that find savings, not cuts. They are themselves proposing savings in the neighborhood of $8 billion to $9 billion, and that is just their first inception, that is just their first proposal, before we even go down that road.

Then I looked further at the motion to instruct conferees and it says: ``To strike reconciliation instructions to

the Committee on Energy and Commerce and recede to the Senate by including language declaring that a reconciliation bill shall not be reported that achieves spending reductions that would undermine the role the Medicaid program plays as a critical component of the health care system of the United States.''

I say again, there is no controversy in that. That is not the intent of the budget, that is not the intent of the conference, that certainly is not the intent of either reconciliation instruction. In fact, we think it is a pretty good idea to set up a conference and to set up an opportunity to take a look at this in some type forum, whether it is a task force, whether it is a working group, however you want to put it together, in order to come up with ideas and resolve this problem.

We want to invite the Governors to the table. Certainly they have the best perspective when it comes to how this program works in their individual States. Many of them have sought waivers in order to be able to reform the program on the ground in which they see it so that that program which delivers these essential services can be met and delivered in a more quality way to our seniors and to our citizens with disabilities, to our parents and grandparents, and to our most vulnerable who may be low income.

So I do not see the controversy. I understand that because, as the gentlewoman said, there are polls, there certainly is politics involved. Anytime that anyone wants to bring forward any kind of reform measure, the immediate thing is to rush breathlessly to the floor and claim that it is cutting funds for people, and it is cutting the most vulnerable and it is hurting people, and that is exactly what was said about the welfare reform bill when it came to the floor not 10 years ago, and it did not happen. It helped people. It unlocked from poverty thousands upon thousands of families and children in our society who all they needed was a hand up. For a while they may even have needed a handout. But because of the requirements that we passed in a bipartisan way, we were able to rise above the politics and the rhetoric and help people. That is what we want to do here.

There is not one Member who can come to the floor and say this Medicaid program is working in your State to its fullest extent, not one of you. Not one of you can say that. There is not one Member in the other body who can say that. There is, I dare say, not one Governor who can claim the Medicaid program in their State is working. So you are asking us here today in a political way, in a nonbinding motion to instruct, to do nothing.

Thankfully, that is not how you crafted technically your motion to instruct. You gave just a little bit of a backdoor, because you know as well as we do that this program needs attention, that it needs reformation, that it needs Governors and Congress and the administration to sit down and talk about the future of a program that is needed in order to deal with the most vulnerable in our society. So thank you for not crafting this in such a fail-safe way so that we had to vote against it and suggest that Medicaid should not be reformed, because, of course, it should.

I hope that is not what you are saying. If you are, say it. If you are saying do not reform Medicaid, do not touch it, do not change it, it is perfect, it is helping people, come to the floor and dare to say that. But if that is not what you are saying, then save that political rhetoric for some other time and let us work together to fix it.

That is what this ought to be about. Republican and Democrat Governors are certainly willing to do that. They are sitting down. I have got proposals here that add up to $8.6 billion of ideas that the Governors have already agreed to as a starting point. Now, are we claiming that those Governors are cutting? Are they gouging? Are they throwing people out on the street? Are they hurting seniors and people with disabilities?

Certainly that is not what we are saying. That is not what we would claim they are doing. They see a problem, they have come together to try to fix it, and that is what we should do as well. Reconciliation gives us that opportunity.

So I appreciate the gentlewoman's motion to instruct. It is crafted perfectly so that political points can be made. But there is just that little backdoor that says, you know what, even though we kind of like the Senate language, we like the fact that they are putting together ideas, we like the fact that the Governors are coming to the table, we heard all of that rhetoric, even though we want to make some political points today, there is a little bit of a backdoor so we can all vote for this and say that the Medicaid program, as most of our Governors would suggest, is unsustainable. It is unsustainable whether you are in the capital of your State or whether you are in Washington, D.C. And that is why we need to come together as Republicans and Democrats, in order to fix this.

So I appreciate the way the gentlewoman has crafted it. I am going to urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct. I think it is well-crafted, to give everybody the opportunity to make the political points, to issue your press releases. I know you are going to do that. Knock yourselves out. I am sure they are already on the fax machine. But in the meantime, after all of the fax paper has cleared the air, let us sit down and talk about ways to fix this program so it actually does help people who are in need and were truly meant to be the focal point of this program when it was invented 40 years ago and which has rarely been changed from a Washington perspective ever since.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I want Members who are listening, maybe in their offices or here on the floor, and anyone else that is interested in listening to this debate today, listen for four things. Listen to whether you hear anyone come to the floor today and defend the Medicaid program as it stands today as perfect. My colleagues did not hear the gentleman from Maryland say that because, of course, he does not agree with that. Listen to hear if you hear any Member come to the floor and say, absolutely not, you cannot find a nickel's worth of savings in the program. You will not hear any Member come to the floor today and say that. I dare say the gentleman from Maryland would not say that.

Listen to this: Did the gentleman say he was against reform? Of course not. The gentleman from Maryland knows that in Maryland, as in Iowa, the program needs help if it is going to meet the needs of a changing world and meet the needs of its original mission. And listen to hear whether you hear any of them come forward and disagree with the bipartisan result of the Governors coming forth with savings. Not one Member will come today, I would dare say, and suggest that they are going to disagree with the Governors who come forth with ideas. My colleagues will not hear that.

So make your political points; even bring in Social Security. Did my colleagues hear that one? Social Security was even raised today. Boy, we are going to hear all sorts of great arguments, but we will not hear one that says we cannot find savings, this program is perfect, we are against reform, and we disagree with the Governors. We will not hear that. That is why we need to move forward with a reform of the Medicaid program ushered in by this budget.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say I have a reform idea right here from the Governors that I would agree to right now.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction. But be that as it may, I yield myself 15 more seconds to say that all I am suggesting is there are some good ideas that are out there, and the budget is a vehicle to accomplish a reform schedule. That is what we are trying to agree to, and I appreciate the fact the gentleman wrote the motion to instruct to give us the opportunity to meet that reform schedule in a bipartisan way, I hope.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond and say, okay, I stand corrected. I thought no one was going to come to the floor and say do nothing. But I guess there are going to be a few Members who come to the floor and say do nothing. I am surprised by that. I think there will be a bipartisan vote today to do something, but doing nothing I really believe is not an option, and I guess I am surprised that there will be Members who will come to the floor today and do absolutely nothing to help improve the Medicaid program.

But I know someone who wants to do something.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the very distinguished chairman from the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I want to make sure people are, and Members are, listening to this debate and are reading the language, because again, if you want to come down here and vote politics again, you want to put out your press releases and fax machines are going whizzing around, hey, knock yourselves out.

But we have got a job to do down here, and we should read the language in front of us. And, again, it says that we should not report a reconciliation bill that achieves spending reductions. I just want to make sure people understand that, because I want to give you the actual numbers for Medicaid. If you are bored about numbers, turn down the sound because I am about to quote some numbers. But this is serious business.

I want to tell you what the Medicaid program is going to spend over the next 10 years. And I want you to listen to the numbers and the increases. This year we are going to spend $183 billion, which is almost a 4 percent increase from last year; $190 billion the next year, $202 billion. It goes up: $220. It goes up by 9 percent that year; $239 billion, goes up by almost 9 percent that year. $260 billion by 2010. By 2010, $260 billion. That is almost as much as we are spending on national defense right now. $282 billion, $304 billion. It goes up every single one of those years. Out of that $1.1 trillion or more, it is actually a little bit more than that I just quoted, we are saying in the House budget, even before we talk about a compromise with the other body, we are saying, instead of growing at an average rate of growth per year of 7\1/2\ percent, we want to grow at 7.3 percent.

We are going to grow every year. There are not spending reductions. Every single year of the House budget spending for Medicaid goes up. Every single year. Every year it goes up. There were no spending reductions.

Now, are we slowing down the growth?

Yes. And that is what the Governors have asked us to do. That is what they are coming here with proposals to accomplish. And their proposals that they have put forth, some have not even yet been scored, but the ones that have been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, which tries to add all that up and to find out what savings we have got, of the six main proposals that the bipartisan Governors have come forth with, they have already found $8.6 billion, and three of the proposals have not even yet been scored.

So to say there is no savings, to say that we are hurting the most vulnerable, to suggest that nobody wants reform, again, I would ask colleagues to listen to the debate.

Will there be political rhetoric today?

Yes. Unfortunately, that will be true. The same happened in the welfare reform debate. Members came to the floor saying we should not do anything. We should not make changes, we should not reform the program. Let us keep what we have got. We changed the program, and people were helped.

No Member is going to come to the floor today and say the Medicaid program is perfect. I dare say no Member would come to the floor and tell you that. No Member is going to come to the floor today and say we cannot find savings.

Actual cuts? I can understand why they might come to the floor. But that is not what is being proposed.

But can we find savings? Every Member will come to the floor today and say of course. If you look at a program long enough that is 40 years old and has never been changed, of course you can find savings, particularly one that in a bipartisan way every Governor is either asking to get out of through a waiver or is coming to Washington to suggest that we need to reform.

No Member is going to come to the floor today and say we should do absolutely nothing, with just a few exceptions. There may be a few Members who try and do that. And there will be no Members who come to the floor today and suggest that the Governors in a bipartisan way have put forth ideas that are not worthy of consideration. We need to consider it.

Again, I am very happy that the Members on the other side have given us a motion to instruct conferees with a fail-safe, with a trapdoor that allows us to keep the momentum of reform building and allows them to make their political points. That is what they are allowed to do, is to come to the floor and make their political points. But thank goodness we still have a process that says we have got to move forward.

This is an unsustainable growth rate, that every year the program grows and grows and grows. There are no cuts.

Are there savings that we suggest? Yes. That was true in welfare reform. It is true as we look at Medicaid. And we need to look for the savings, because without reform the program not only will bankrupt itself, but more important than all of the talk about numbers and budgets and all of those things, it will begin to hurt people who truly are the most vulnerable that this program endeavors to assist.

So the commission approach that the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) has put forward is a good idea. She has many cosponsors. That is not something that the budget itself can accomplish. But, certainly, we endorse that kind of an approach to look for ways to bring all interested parties together to find reform.

And I hope that instead of just putting out your faxes, which you will do, and make out your political statements, that is fine. We understand

that. But you will also, after all of the dust settles, come forward with your ideas the way Democratic Governors and Republican Governors have done, so that we can begin to resolve this issue and not just have rhetoric. We need results, not just the rhetoric of today. And that is what this budget accomplishes.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, who has the right to close?

Madam Speaker, I am the final speaker so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, those who actually administer the Medicaid program, our State Governors, have clearly told us in a bipartisan way that Medicaid must be reformed.

Wake up.

For those of you who are about to vote on this motion, this is a good motion. What it does is it says it is time to reform the program. It is time to consider the proposals that the Governors have put forth in a bipartisan way. They have clearly told us that their hands have been tied.

Their hands have been tied, Madam Speaker, by a program that is inefficient. It is ridiculously out of date, a health care delivery system that has not and will not under its current structure deal with the demands of the 21st century.

There is not one Governor that is suggesting do nothing. There is not one Member on the Republican side of the aisle that is suggesting do nothing. The 44 Members who signed the letter saying we are concerned about the future of Medicaid, they are not saying do nothing.

Everyone who is interested in the reform of this program understands that the budget this year gives us a schedule and an opportunity to finally get our arms around the Medicaid program.

I understand that there are going to be all sorts of political press releases put out about gouging and cutting and all sorts of things like that; but if anyone is interested in the actual technical language of the budget, they will discover that every single year the program under the House budget grows, every year.

What we are suggesting is that, with reform, it does not have to grow as much. Instead of growing at 7.5 percent, it can grow at a level a little lower, maybe 7.3 percent or 7.4 percent. Every year it should still grow because there are vulnerable people, there are senior citizens, there are people with disabilities who rely on this program. Our States rely on this program. We rely on this program in order to meet the needs of many people in this country who cannot help themselves.

Do not let anybody fool my colleagues. No one came to the floor today in support of this motion and said the program's perfect; the Governors are wrong; we do not like what they came up with; we do not think we should reform the program.

In fact, let us look at the reforms they have come up with. They have said let us restructure the pharmacy reimbursements to more closely align with the Medicaid pharmacy payments and pharmacy costs. That alone will save $5 billion. Bipartisan support from the Governors. I dare say we could support that here today.

Second proposal, revising what is called ``asset transfer.'' That will save the government $1.4 billion. Bipartisan support by the Governors.

Please do not come to the floor or issue press releases today that says do nothing. I understand my colleagues want to make a political point. That is fine. That is what motions to instruct conferees often do, but we are going to vote on a budget later on this week that says it is time to do something, it is time to reform the program, it is time to save a little bit of money and improve a program that is for our most deserved people, people who cannot help themselves. This is something we can do in a bipartisan way.

The same way Governors in a bipartisan way have come forward with their ideas, I would invite all Members to let their members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce know what their ideas are because we are going to go forward with reform. It is not going to actually cut any money. It is going to find savings. It is going to improve a program. It is going to reform it.

If the gentlewoman, who is the proponent of this motion, thinks the program is perfect, let her say so. If she thinks that we cannot find any savings, let her say so. If she thinks the Governors are wrong, let her say so. But no Member has come to the floor to say that yet today.

So that is why we should support this motion and move the budget forward to reform the Medicaid program and save some money as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 95.