Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I guess the gentleman could take that from the fact that I wrote the bill yesterday even though I know there were some who may have been surprised by that. I do not think there is a Member in this body that opposes housing for military families. We just need to do it in the right way.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this rule, and I do so without disrespect at all to the gentlewoman. She is a very valuable Member of this Congress and a friend and someone who has worked hard to make sure that when we write budgets, when we determine spending priorities, that we adhere to them. And that is why I rise in opposition to this rule. This bill breaches the spending limit made under the budget. There will be people who come to the floor today who will claim that the only issue today is military housing when, in fact, the issue today is an $800-plus billion budget from which we can find many puts and many takes in order to adjust priorities here and adjust priorities there in order to make sure all priorities fit within a budget. How does this process work? The Committee on Appropriations, appropriately and in a way that we all appreciate, filed their bill meeting what is called the 302(b) number for military construction, meaning that it fit within the budget when the committee process began. But there were amendments that were made in order to increase the amount of spending over the budget and over the amount that was prioritized. Why was that done? It was done for political purposes. It was done to make points because, as everyone knows, in the Department of Defense authorization bill, the cap that we will be talking about today for military housing was lifted. So it is being taken care of. It is being taken care of in the authorization process, which is the appropriate way to handle it, the appropriate direction to take, and a way that does not bust the budget and allows all of us to do this within a responsible process. This Military Construction bill breaches the allocations that the Committee on Appropriations established for the Subcommittee on Military Construction by $1.2 billion as a result; that is 10 percent of the allocation. We are not just busting this by a couple of bucks here. We are not just saying it is okay to go over by a little. I mean, there have already been three bills that have left the House floor as appropriations that busted their allocations, three bills that we voted on on the floor here, that were sent to the other body, that busted the budget. So it does happen. It does happen by a few hundred thousand here, hundred million there, but rarely have we ever seen the chutzpa of coming to the floor with a bill that busts it by over 10 percent of the allocation. How does the Committee on Appropriations usually deal with this? Very typically, very routinely, the Committee on Appropriations comes to the floor and they make an adjustment to their 302(b) allocations. In fact, they can even make an adjustment to a bill that has already left, and they have done that in the past. And in fact, as I understand it today, they will make adjustments to their 302(b) allocations in order to make the three bills that left here, busting the budget, fit, something that they routinely do currently and totally within their jurisdiction and something that we, as fiscal hawks and people that want to make sure that we adhere to the budget, appreciate. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has never brought a bill to this floor that busted the budget. Unfortunately, today this rule would allow that to happen. And that is why I rise in opposition, because we should not allow that to happen. Military housing is an effective program, so important that I am disappointed that the Committee on Appropriations did not offset the additional cost with a spending reduction in other bills from lower- priority items, which is fully within their jurisdiction. Do they mean to tell me there is nothing else within any of the 13 appropriation bills that are lower priority than the military housing for our families who are fighting to defend our freedom? Nothing? Absolutely nothing? We cannot look for anything? Just waive the rules, and not only waive the budget and the budget rules, but to do so almost 2 weeks after we had a debate on this floor saying the budget process is broken, we have got to come up with new rules. Why do we have to come up with new rules if we break the rules that we already have? Why do we adhere to the rules that we already have? Such as we write a budget, we allow the Committee on Appropriations to make their allocations within the discretionary accounts. They make that decision and bring bills to the floor to fit within that budget so that in final analysis we are able to stay within that budget overall and not increase the deficit and not borrow more money and not add to the national debt. But we will continue to hear today that this is an important program and it needs our support. And it does need our support and it already has our support because it is moving through in the Department of Defense authorization. The House should not be in a position of having to take up this bill. Under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, it is not in order for the House to even consider a measure that breaches the 302(b) allocation, Mr. Speaker. It is not even in order to consider this bill. And there are all sorts of mechanisms available to the Committee on Appropriations prior to bringing this bill to the floor, to make their adjustments to ensure that this bill meets its allocation. The purpose of this rule is not to put a burden on enforcing the budget on the committee while it is moving the bill. Nevertheless, in a dramatic lapse of what I would call parliamentary responsibility and budget discipline, the rule waives this point of order. The rule shifts the burden for bringing the bill into compliance with the resolution away from the committee that is responsible, away from the Committee on Appropriations that we ask to make the tough decisions, to make the tough political decisions when they are political, like this one will have to be because people will make political points about this, about people not caring, about people not supporting, about people not wanting our military families to live in decent housing. Well, there is not a Member of this body, not a Member of this body on either side, who should be accused of that or who would suggest that the men and women who serve in our military, who fight for freedom, should live in sub-quality housing. That is why we have the program. That is why the Department of Defense authorization lifts the cap and works to ensure that our men and women in the military have the ability to do just that. Faced with the choice, and it is an unfortunate choice that I believe we are faced with today, of enforcing the budget resolution or supporting this rule, I believe it is my job as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to enforce the budget; to listen to the men and women in the military who think their choice is more important than all sorts of choices that have been made and are going to be made in subsequent appropriation bills, number one, and also listen to the unbelievable amount, it should not be unbelievable, it is actually believable to me, but the growing chorus of people across this country that say you in Congress spend too much money. Set your priorities. Determine what is important. Support our military families, and find something that is not quite as high a priority to cut out of the budget, to postpone until next year, to eliminate entirely. The waste, fraud and abuse that is going on in this budget, that is going on in this government, that goes on as a result of what we continue to perpetuate without making those tough choices, is what we have to come through. Are the choices tough? Of course they are tough. But remember 2 weeks ago when we had that budget debate; when everybody said please, take away those tough choices for me. Come up with new rules that have commissions, outside commissions, to make these decisions. Or let us do something so that I do not have to make these tough choices, so I do not have to choose between military families and waste within other Departments of the government. I know what my choice is. My choice is let us eliminate the waste. My choice is let us support those families, just like everybody else here on the floor would choose. Instead, unfortunately, what happens today is we have a bill that comes to the floor that not only busts the overall budget, but busts its total allocation for this bill alone by 10 percent. That is irresponsible to our military families, and that is irresponsible to the fiscal integrity of this government. We should not adopt this rule. If it is adopted, I will move to strike this provision. I ask for people to vote in opposition to this rule.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground a quorum is not present and make the point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, well, then, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for yielding me this time. There is no one in this body who has worked any harder than he has in making this issue resolved, getting it to resolution. I appreciate his willingness to expedite this bill that I introduced today in order to help deal with the problem. To those who are suggesting that this bill goes nowhere after it passes unanimously today, I just ask them, why? I see them shaking their heads, but why is it that the other body would stop military families from receiving this benefit? And why is it that the other body would oppose the Department of Defense authorization, as we hear is occurring? Why are they stopping everything? For our defense needs, our intelligence needs, our military families, everything is stopped. They have not even been willing to vote on a budget. I ask the Members, is that a problem? Of course it is. Do we break our rules? Do we bust our budget in order to do that, in order to fix it? I would suggest no. You have the right to overrule that. You have the right to vote differently. I would suggest you do that if that is how you feel. But then do not come to the floor and lecture the Committee on the Budget about how the budget process is broken. Do not come to the floor and lecture the American people about deficits and national debts and tell me time and time again during the budget debate itself how when you are in a hole, you stop digging. I believe if I had a nickel for every time that speech was made, we could probably resolve the national debt and the deficit, because when you are in a hole, you stop digging. How could you do that? Today the Committee on Appropriations brought to the floor a bill that busts the budget by $1.2 billion instead of looking throughout the rest of their budget, the rest of their appropriations allocation of $821 billion, to find enough money in order to meet the needs of our military families. So they came to the floor and for the very first time since Republicans took the majority, violated a rule, bringing to the floor an appropriation bill that busted their allocation called 302(b), which I understand most people watching do not pay any attention to. Yes, these are arcane rules, but the reason that we have these rules is so that we can try to get a handle on spending. And, no, it is not just for military families. I ask Members to look through that $821 billion and they will find many places that are less important than our military families. That is why this bill needs to be supported. We need to pass it, and we need to put pressure on the other body that stands in the way of all progress for our military, passing the Department of Defense authorization, passing appropriation bills. We are not even going to pass the Military Construction appropriation bill before the election. I will bet my colleagues on that one. Will we do what is called a CR? Probably. But do my colleagues think we are going to pass that before this election? Do my colleagues think we are not going to have CR and CR and CR? If it is such an important priority, where are these people rushing to get this done? So I want to commend the gentleman who is the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services who has jurisdiction over this issue, who has been working on this, who is bringing this bill today to the floor and deserves the ability to continue to work on this and not put it in an appropriation bill when it does not belong there, and it busts the budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NUSSLE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will insist on that.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Missouri, I have even been told today I was shooting at Santa Claus. Somebody came to the floor and said I shot Santa Claus today. My goodness, I have been accused of a lot of things, but shooting Santa Claus and personally, individually, one Member stopping 24,000 families from getting that housing, let us review the record. If this was so important, would my colleagues not think that the Committee on Appropriations, in their base bill as it was reported to the subcommittee, do my colleagues not think that in that base bill they would have written this procedure in? It was not done. It was not done. In fact, it was done as an amendment at the committee. So I understand that this is now a pretty important priority for a number of reasons. Some of it is politics. Some of it is expediency. Some of it is probably due to the fact that we have a body across the Rotunda that does not appear to be getting much accomplished. There is a lot of that that probably makes it very difficult. But that does not mean that we bend our rules, we break our rules here in the House in order to proceed. There is not one family today that loses their housing as a result of a point of order on the House floor. My goodness, if that was the case, there would probably be a lot more Members down here doing a lot of points of order on a lot more issues. What needs to be done is, priorities need to be made. We need to within the bills determine what is important, and I would stack up military housing to just about anything else in most of these bills that come to the floor called appropriation bills. People want to talk about priorities? These are the priorities, and the gentleman from Missouri is as strong as the gentleman from California in understanding that. But I am, too, and every Member of this body is, too. And I appreciate the leadership that that gentleman from Missouri makes every day for our men and women. But we have many leaders who make that same sacrifice, and I do not count myself in the back seat to any one of them.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 4850, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Under authority granted in Article I of the United States Constitution (section 8, clause 17), this bill appropriates Federal payments to the District to fund certain activities, and also approves the District of Columbia's entire budget, including the expenditure of local funds ($8.2 billion in local funds for fiscal year 2005). Although a vast majority of the funds discussed in this bill are local funds originating from the District of Columbia, I speak today only about the $560 million in Federal funds appropriated in this bill. This is the ninth bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocation adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 9. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established the conference report to S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005, which the House adopted as its fiscal blueprint on May 19. H.R. 4850 provides $560 million in new discretionary BA, which is equal to the 302(b) allocation to the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia; outlays are 416 million below the allocation. The bill contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, nor does it include rescissions of previously enacted appropriations. 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. Nonetheless, because House-passed appropriations bills to date have exceeded their allocations by a total of $114 million, it is possible that conference agreements on appropriations bills will cause a breach in the BA ceiling unless corrective action is taken by the Appropriations Committee. With that reservation, I express my support for H.R. 4850.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 4818, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2005. This is the [seventh] bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 9th. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established by the conference report to S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005, which the House adopted as its fiscal blueprint on May 19th. H.R. 4818 provides $19.429 billion in new budget authority, which is within the 302(b) allocation to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and outlays of $26.742 billion. The bill contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, nor does it include rescissions of previously- enacted appropriations. 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. I commend Chairman Kolbe's efforts to prioritize our foreign operations funding to respond to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, to support our allies in the global war on terrorism, and to support innovative approaches to foreign assistance. In addition, I strongly support the record level of $2.2 billion in funding provided in the bill to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; of which almost $1.26 billion is funded under the Global HIV/ AIDS account, $885 million under the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund, and $54 million through other accounts. I am pleased the Appropriations Committee was able to prioritize our critical funding needs for foreign operations within the fiscally responsible manner outlined in the budget resolution and, therefore, urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4818.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 4766, the Agricultural Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. H.R. 4766 provides $16.8 billion in budget authority and $18.0 annually in outlays--a decrease of $875 million in BA and $181 million in outlays from fiscal year 2004. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am pleased to report that the bill is consistent with the conference report on the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005--H. Con. Res. 95--which recently passed the full House but has yet to pass the Senate. The bill comes in at its 302(b) allocation for fiscal year 2005 and therefore complies with section 302(f) of the budget resolution, which limits appropriations measures to the allocation of the reporting subcommittee. H.R. 4766 continues the practice on Agriculture Appropriations bills of changing mandatory programs to generate savings to offset discretionary spending. This year's bill contains nearly $1.3 billion in such changes to mandatory programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. Let me conclude by commending Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur for a job well done in prioritizing the programs within their jurisdiction and coming to the floor with a bill that complies with this year's budget resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 4755, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This is the sixth bill we are considering pursuant to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Appropriations Committee on June 9. I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established in the conference report to S. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005, which the House adopted as its fiscal blueprint on May 19. Conforming with a long practice--under which each chamber of Congress determines its own needs--appropriations for the other body are not included in the reported bill. H.R. 4755 provides $2.751 billion in new budget authority, which is within the 302(b) allocation to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative and outlays of $2.92 billion. The bill contains no emergency-designated new budget authority, nor does it include rescissions of previously enacted appropriations. 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. I commend Chairman Kingston's remarks in the accompanying report underscoring the fact that with record deficits, a war on terrorisms, troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, the budget request from agencies of the legislative branch cannot continue to be presented with requested increases as high as 50 percent. I welcome his efforts and the efforts of other members of the Appropriations Committee as we try to hold discretionary spending to a reasonable level. In reading the final version of this bill I noted that the accompanying report directs the General Accounting Office to review the statutory responsibility and overlap of the jurisdiction of joint committees of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service. We should pause before we ask one congressional agency to examine the jurisdiction of other congressional agencies and committees of Congress. Also, it might not be appropriate for GAO to assume this role when it may duplicate the functions of some of the agencies it is being charged with evaluating. With that reservation, I express my support for H.R. 4755.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2005 and for the 5-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 and section 401 of the Conference Report on the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2005 (S. Con. Res. 95), which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House under H. Res. 649. This status report is current through July 9, 2004. 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 S. 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 2005 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 S. 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 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 2005 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 2006 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of S. Con. Res. 95. 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.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to introduce H.R. 4715, the Spectrum Accountability Act, which supports the adherence to sound principles of spectrum auction management, particularly the use of competitive bidding. This bill addresses the requirement for spectrum auctions and the need for the efficient management of this finite resource. The competitive bidding process has already shown us that a fair market value is best attained through the use of competitive bidding. At present, there is a disagreement over the proper statutory application of the Federal Communications Commission's requirement to conduct spectrum auctions. There are some who suggest that current communications law is unclear as to when an auction is required. This bill reaffirms the obvious intent of Congress to use the auction process and competitive bidding for the grant of commercial spectrum, and clarifies when the auction requirement is applicable. Congress has a duty to efficiently manage Federal resources. This duty is the same whether the resource is actual taxpayer dollars or public assets, such as electromagnetic spectrum, which are held by the Government. While it is the Federal Communications Commission's role to handle the operational aspects of spectrum management, this function must be carried out as prescribed by communications law. Congress was quite clear that auctions and the competitive bidding process provide the most efficient and appropriate means for spectrum management; this bill will dispel any remaining misconceptions on the matter.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute before I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I hear from Members on both sides of the aisle that this is really a waste of time today. It is kind of a silly exercise. We ought to be having appropriation debate on the floor. We have got appropriations bill that are waiting in line with no prospect of getting them done on time this year, and yet we have got to do this. I hear from some that this is really an exercise as a price to prevent obstructionism on the floor for consideration of appropriation bills, that if we do not debate that, somebody is going to obstruct the floor. Regardless, let me say a couple of things. There is a budget. The House has deemed the budget. We await consideration in the other body of the budget, and this is a nonbinding resolution that we are about to talk about for the next couple of hours here instead of talking about appropriation bills, but I guess we are going to go through this exercise. As the majority leader said, we are going to have some fun because we get to point out our differences, but let us just face it. This is a nonbinding, somewhat silly exercise, but we are going to go through the process and talk about the differences. Mr. Speaker, in order to do that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the Committee on the Budget to continue the debate on the Democrat increase-taxes-and- spending proposal.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to read the last line of the bill. The minority leader may want to read page 5 of the resolution she just defended. It is not a tax increase? My goodness. What does ``changes in tax laws sufficient to increase revenues by $18 billion'' mean? I heard one time if it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might be a duck. This is a tax increase. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to talk further about this Democrat tax increase resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on this small business job-killing bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the Committee on the Budget, to continue the debate on this more-money-solves-all-problems proposal.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to continue our debate on this Democrat increased-taxes bill, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to continue our debate on this tax-increase, job-killing bill, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on the Democrat tax- increase proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to respond.