Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, we do not want to ``bamboozle,'' so I would yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the point of this all is, this is a tax increase. They are admitting it. There were so many Members who came to the floor and said, oh, no, no, no, we are not really increasing taxes. But what the colloquy between the two gentleman from Wisconsin proves is, once and for all, this is a tax increase. So if one wants to come to the floor today in the middle of an economic recovery and vote to increase taxes on small business, knock yourself out.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Respectfully, because I know the Speaker is from New York, let me yield myself 30 seconds and say I think a lot of that money we borrowed was sent up to New York. So when the gentleman is talking about what happened and Alice in Wonderland, let me just remind the gentleman that we sent a lot of that to New York. We had a terrorist attack. I know the gentleman knows that, and he voted for it then, and he did not say a word about it then. He said send the money. We need it. Do whatever it takes. Now he comes to the floor and he says, gee, I guess we borrowed too much money. Well, maybe we did, but the gentleman should have complained about it then. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. It all comes down to who is doing the feeding of the oats. The government does not feed oats. That is not where the economic advantage of this country comes from. We do not pass out money to people here and say here is government money, we printed it, you get to have it. They get it from working. They get it from farming. They get it from taking risk. They get it from unlocking their door in the morning and letting in the public to their flower shop, to their shoe store, to their bank, to whatever it might be, unlocking that door and letting the energy and the economic engine of this country work. That is what we want to continue: working. We do not want this to kill jobs. Just at the moment when we are increasing jobs, look what we have done. Yes, there was a downturn. In the aftermath of 9/11 and in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble busting and the aftermath of the Clinton recession, there is no question, look right here; that is what that is, that little downturn. But look how it is going back up. And it is going up because the engine of America is working. It is not going up because of the chart on spending. When we increase spending in Washington, that does not drive the economy. That does not do anything except it spends money in Washington. What drives the economy are people in Wisconsin and Iowa taking a risk, building a business, employing people so that when they balance their checkbook around their kitchen table and they meet their obligations and pay for their kids' college and pay for health care and turn on the lights and pay for groceries, they can do it. It is not because, with all due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we send them a check. Because that does not do anything. The check they want to make is a paycheck, not a government check. Every single person in America wants a paycheck. And that is what we have done. We have created paychecks. Look what the spending side of this does. They are saying we are not spending enough in Washington. Look at all of this increase. Look at all of the debt that they are complaining about. And on top of all of that, they say, no, the problem is we are still not spending enough money in Washington. And the thing they misconnect is that that money in Washington came from somebody, a taxpayer. Money does not start in Washington. Money starts in Iowa, in Wisconsin, across the country, in people's pockets, in small businesses. That is where it starts. And they want to take more of it, they want to kill those jobs, so that they can hand out more money, so that they in Washington can have the power. We do not want that to happen. We want the power to be around the kitchen tables of Iowa and Wisconsin. That is why we have opposed their big tax increases. As far as the spending, the taxes, that is obvious those increases are ridiculous. But the increases in spending, one can always say we want to hand out more money in order to demonstrate our compassion. And we have told them about the increases in education, the increases in veterans, the increases in health care, the increases for the environment, for all sorts of programs, and to make sure our country was protected. But on top of that, they say, you know what, I think we can even be more compassionate. We are going to hand out money and tell people we care. Well, quite honestly, I think it is time for to us start looking around for the waste. I believe that, instead of this debate on the floor today, what we should have done is had an appropriation bill come up. That is what we should have done. We should have started going through all the accounts and look for ways where the Federal Government is not spending that money as wisely as the people back home in Iowa and Wisconsin. We do not want to kill jobs; we do not need to increase spending. We do not need a resolution like the Democrat proposal on the floor today to tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend and tax and spend more and more in Washington. This needs to be done around the kitchen tables of Iowa, not the committee tables in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I hope Members vote against this ill conceived proposal.

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

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the most important job of the House Committee on the Budget which I have the honor of being the Chair is really twofold. First is to put together and pass in the House a responsible, realistic blueprint to guide the spending and revenue decisions for the Federal Government. We did that. We completed a budget over a month ago when this Chamber adopted the conference report for the budget for fiscal year 2005. Getting a budget is difficult enough. Now comes the second part of the job and that is to ensure that you stick to it. Getting the budget means that you have been able to get a majority of Members to agree on the levels for spending, on the levels for revenues and to bring together those very different ideas because, trust me, there is no such thing as a perfect budget by any stretch of the imagination. My good friend from Florida reminds me of that every once in a while. But we do get a document that tries to mold and shape the hopes and dreams and the budget priorities for the Nation in a document, and then we work to stick to it. Since the gentleman from Florida came on the floor, the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, let me say something about the House and our ability to stick to that plan. We have passed budgets in years past that have been difficult. We have dealt with terrorist attacks. We have dealt with a downturn in the economy. We have dealt with the need to borrow resources to deal with emergencies we never managed. We had to deal with new priorities no one had ever heard of, new Departments like Homeland Security; and new initiatives such as a global war on terrorism, a war in Iraq, and a war in Afghanistan. And I have to tell the Members that in each one of those turns, committees have worked together in order to accomplish that. There is no doubt that once in a while committees will have difficulty coming to agreement on certain priorities and ideas; but once we do it, there is general agreement and effort to stick to it. And when we talk about sticking to it, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and his committee have done an excellent job of sticking to it. We have increased spending over the last number of years at a rate that has been unprecedented, in many respects because we have had unprecedented need, particularly in homeland security, national defense, intelligence, and emergencies that we have had to deal with. But even the nondefense or nonsecurity accounts have increased at an alarming rate, twice the rate of inflation. And so it is no wonder that Members will come to the floor from time to time, we saw that debate earlier today, and say, look, spending is out of control. Unfortunately, we often focus far too much attention and energy on just what we call the discretionary appropriation accounts, the 13 bills that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has to shepherd not only through the House floor but also through the Senate and to final passage. That process has been difficult. We are behind in that process, and I have no doubt the chairman will remind me that having this discussion probably puts us even further behind. But we are having this debate, nonetheless, because once we have a budget, we also want to make sure we stick to it. And that is why an enforcement bill has come to the floor. I will definitely report to my colleagues that I would much rather have this debate after the other body had passed the conference report, but they are tied in knots over there across the rotunda on the other side of the Capitol. Politics, Presidential elections, all sorts of things are tying up all sorts of items in the other body, going to make it very difficult for us to pass budgets, appropriations, get judges confirmed, all sorts of a myriad of issues that make that difficult. As a result of having some difficulty in spending and having difficulty in getting a budget through the other body, the third item which I want to bring up is huge increases in what we call mandatory spending through our Federal Government. Mandatory spending, as most of my colleagues know, are those spending initiatives which are on auto pilot, meaning we have passed a law to fund a program, and unless we change the law, the funding continues. Medicare is probably one of the best examples of that. We just had a huge change in Medicare to provide a first-ever prescription drug benefit for seniors. It costs a lot of money, though, and that has grown much faster as a result than even many of the discretionary accounts. So as a result, there are Members who come to the floor frustrated by the increases in spending, frustrated because there are times when the budget is not followed, and thinking that if we change the process on how we achieve the budget or if we change the process on how we discuss appropriation bills, that will solve everything. And I am part of that camp from time to time. But I must remind all of us before we start this debate that when everything is said and done here today, it still comes down to how we vote. One can blame the process. One can blame the budget. One can blame the Committee on Appropriations. One can blame individual Members. One can blame past administrations. One can blame current administrations. But no matter what one blames, they had better look in the mirror today before they come down here to vote on anything and realize that spending increases when Members vote to increase spending. And already the appropriation bills that we have seen cross this floor have had huge majorities, huge majorities, for very valid increases, in defense and intelligence, other issues that have come before our body. Why? Because the need is there. So those Members who come to the floor today and say let us blame the process or let us blame the procedure or let us blame another committee also need to take their fair share of the responsibility for how the process runs. I believe that we need discipline, and we need enforcement of a budget once we get it. That requires what we used to have in this body, and that is caps in PAYGO. Caps in PAYGO, statutory caps in PAYGO, I believe, are necessary because it gives the force of law to what we have done. It makes sure that all three entities, the President; the Senate, the other body; and the House, are all together when the discussion occurs on spending, when the discussion occurs on taxes, when the discussion occurs on mandatory or entitlement increases. It ensures that everybody is there because we are all in this together. We cannot do one without the other. We cannot say it is only the Congress's prerogative because the President has to sign the check, he has got to sign the bill if, in fact, that is what he agrees to. But it starts here in a process called the budget, called the appropriations process, and called the authorization process. So in order for us to deal with this, we are asking that the body today consider capping spending at the rate we just passed in the budget resolution, and just for 2 years, do not bind another Congress, just for these 2 years, and to also for really the first time address mandatory spending and its out-of-control nature by applying what we used to apply and that is pay-as-you-go to entitlements or mandatory spending. We believe this will help us. It will not be the be all and end all because there are still emergencies; there are still other ways that Congress spends money outside of that process. But this is one of the ways that we found in the 1990s to help ensure that spending control could occur. Members are going to come to the floor with different opinions, and I respect those opinions. There is no question that people have a variety of ideas on how we should do this. But I would ask each and every one of them to remember that this is about each and every one of us, as Members, what our priorities are and how we vote. We cannot give that to another process. Nothing we do here today given to another process will, in and of itself, stop the madness of increases in spending that have been what many Members believe are out of control. The only way, when everything is said and done, is to cast our vote to control spending, and that is done in the individual processes of the bills that we consider here on the floor. So we believe this is a work product worth consideration. There will be amendments to consider changes in the budget process and the appropriations process in order to help get a handle on spending concerns and on mandatory spending. But as I say, when everything is said and done, we have got to have a budget, we have got to enforce it, and we have got to vote that way on each and every bill in order for spending to be controlled. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Ohio 10 seconds.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member of the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for the purpose of a colloquy.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the chairman is correct. This will, in no way, limit the decision of the conferees for H.R. 3550, the level of highway and transit firewalls. It will be determined consistent with the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution and the contingency procedure contained therein in the conference report on H.R. 3550. In either case, this is consistent with the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution, and it allows not as a ceiling but a floor to that conference report.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. More than anything else, I just want to make an observation: There has been a lot of coming to the floor and saying the budget process is broken. Part of the reason that this amendment is being offered is because it is the appropriations process that cannot get done on time. We have had so many years when appropriations do not get done on time, and, because of that, the threat hangs over for government shutdown. It is the reason why we are looking, grappling for a way to make sure that does not happen. But it is because of the appropriations process that with the budget process and other processes around here have some challenges. So do not come down and just talk about the budget. It is also the appropriations process that has challenges.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.