Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. NUSSLE

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. I would continue to yield to the gentleman if he has a solution as to what we should do.

Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, so the Blue Dog budget is your solution?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just ask the question: What is your solution? It is an interesting speech. So does that mean we do not increase the debt limit? I understand that the other side does not want me to comment on the fact that someone is talking down the economy or talking about fiscal calamity or things like that to scare the marketplace, but the gentleman said all those things. I assume the gentleman means, do not pass a debt limit, or maybe the gentleman has another solution.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and to correct the record, I would just get the Congressional Record out and show all of the votes and show the bipartisan support for a number of spending bills over the last 10 years, huge bipartisan support for all 13 appropriations bills, for the emergency supplementals, for the war with Iraq, to support our troops, which press release after press release after press release goes out claiming credit for the spending on the other side. My guess is even the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) probably has put out one or two of those press releases, as most Members do. Having said that, this is not the same as a family budget during periods of relative calm where dad and mom are working and there is no particular problem within the family. What we have here is a situation where the roof collapsed and where dad lost his job, and what you are telling that family is they cannot go borrow money? Everybody knows in an emergency situation like that, when a family faces that kind of financial difficulty, one of their options has to be to be able to go borrow money. Let us review the bidding here. We had a balanced budget on September 10, 2001. Remember those good old days. We had a balanced budget. Everybody took credit for it. Trust me, it was not just the Republican side of the aisle that took credit for it. I remember all sorts of credit that was being taken. But what did that balanced budget get us? Did it protect our country that day? Did it keep us out of a recession? Did it make sure that we had good intelligence about what was coming the very next day? No, it did not. We had a deficit for our defense, we had a deficit for our intelligence, we had a deficit in homeland security, we had a deficit for growth in our economy. And, yes, we had a balanced budget, but we were running deficits all across the board in a number of areas. That was the legacy that Bill Clinton, the President, left us after he left office. That was the legacy of deficits even though, yes, the books balanced. Well, the Soviet Union had a balanced budget, and it did not mean they were doing very well with regard to their future. A balanced budget is an important indicator, and it is one that the gentleman and I support, but it is not the only indicator, particularly when we know within 24 hours of celebrating a balanced budget on September 10, we were hit with one of the worst attacks this country has ever seen, and where that was a gut punch to the economy that took us just till now to recover, and we are still recovering and hope to continue to recover. That is the exact wrong time to ask those people who are working hard for more tax money. Instead, it is time to limit spending, which is exactly what our budget did. Unfortunately, the other side, in a number of budgets, offered a different approach. Most of them offered spending increases. Yours did not, but all of them offered major tax increases at a time that we felt was not the right time for our economic situation. It was not the time to ask those families, those small businesses, those parents with children, those married couples, to dig deeper in their pockets, but rather we should find the fortitude here to freeze the budget; and that is exactly what we are going to propose in the budget as it comes to the floor. We believe that it takes more than just rhetoric to solve this problem. I understand the other side of the aisle has the right to come to the floor and to offer motions to instruct. But again the solution is not found within this motion. The solution is found within a budget that gets majority support and actually does the job of controlling spending, growing the economy, and protecting our country. That is the reason we have chosen the budget that we have; and we believe, as a result, we will get back on good footing and get back to a balanced budget in near time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman. I would say, yes, we did adjust our plan and the gentleman voted for it. We had a stimulus plan in 2002 that was bipartisan that the gentleman joined in. We did adjust in order to not only deal with September 11, but to deal with the economic gut punch that the already inherited recession that we received took as a result of the downturn in the economy caused by September 11. There have been adjustments in the game plan throughout these budgets, and the gentleman has supported some of those. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to the gentleman from Texas, and we have, as the gentleman from Ohio said, been on the same side of the issues over the years often, thankfully more often than it appears sometimes we have been against each other of late. And I am not sure it is necessarily against each other as much as it is a difference of opinion, particularly with regard to the benefit of taxes at this point in time in our economic situation. And I want to provide some information at this point. We really do believe that the tax relief that we have passed is beginning to work, and certainly it is in combination with a good fiscal policy, with a good Fed policy, low interest rates, a number of things that are helping us. But let me just go through these. I think it is important to understand that the tax cuts are working. They are working. Allowing people to keep their money and to spend that money on their own behalf we believe is a much wiser way of proceeding than to take that money to spend it in Washington, and the result of that we believe are some of these numbers: real gross domestic product growth is at its highest pace in 20 years, 20 years since we have seen this high a growth in the gross domestic product. Over the last 6 months of 2000, real GDP growth was at a rate less than 1 percent. So that is why we talk about the fact that we had a growth deficit. The economy was not growing. We had to get that moving. Even before September 11, we recognized that. And after September 11, we made adjustments because we knew the gut punch the economy took was something that no one was prepared for and we had to make fiscal adjustments, which we did and even received bipartisan support for. Net household income reached a record high at the end of 2003, which was $2.5 trillion higher than at the end of 2000. Housing markets are the strongest in 20 years. The unemployment rate is now falling down .7 percentage points from June of last year to April of this year. In contrast, 4 years ago, January 2000 to 2001, the unemployment rate rose during that period of time by three-tenths of a percentage point. Payroll unemployment is growing strongly now, over 1.1 million jobs just over the last 8 months, up by 867,000 over the first 4 months of this year. And as I said, we have the most people working in this country that we have ever had in our history. Manufacturing jobs are increasing. Manufacturing industrial production is growing strongly. Real disposable income. Unemployment insurance claims are falling. All of the signals are there to suggest that not only is the tax relief package working, that Americans are going back to work, that their economy that they have to deal with around their kitchen table is finally working, and when their budgets work, when their economies work, when their families are prosperous, when they are working, when they are making an income, when they are paying taxes as a result of that growth in their income and having a job, it impacts the receipts that are coming in here. And we know that that is happening because we have already heard Treasury suggest that the receipts that are coming in are making our fiscal situation much better. Will that in and of itself be enough? No. We are not betting that growth alone will balance the budget. No one is ever suggesting that, and that is why we believe we have to protect the country. That is going to cost money. And, thankfully, I believe we stand in a bipartisan support most of the time for those kinds of prospects and projects in homeland security and national defense. But it also means holding the line in those other areas; and that is why, as the gentleman from Ohio said, we do believe in pay-as-you-go, particularly for those new entitlements, particularly for those automatic spending programs that have not had the kind of oversight that they have needed over the years. Our budget is going to provide that. We are not only going to do this without a tax increase, but we are going to start to go through and weed the garden, looking for waste, fraud, and abuse in those areas of mandatory spending. We are going to go through and look for ways for us to cut out wasteful programs within our appropriation accounts and freeze those nondefense and nonhomeland security accounts. We are going to do the tough work that that requires. We hope that Members on the other side will join us; but my guess, different than the chorus that we have heard tonight, which I commend my friend from Texas for bringing to our attention, but different than the chorus we are hearing tonight, which is concern about that spending; it will be different. My guess is most of the amendments that we hear about during the appropriation season coming up in June and July will be about increasing spending. My guess is that we will hear about the fact that children are not getting enough money and that seniors are not getting enough money and that States are not getting enough money and that health programs are not getting enough money. My guess is that that is the chorus that we will hear. It will be the unfortunate and consistent wringing of hands that Washington is not spending enough money. And when we see more discipline from both sides, but particularly from my friends on the other side, with all my friends, not just the gentleman from Texas, who usually joins us with that kind of fiscal restraint, but when I see that kind of restraint from all my friends on the other side of the aisle, it will be easier for us to come to bipartisan agreement with regard to the budget. If all we ever hang our hats on do not allow the tax cuts to be made permanent, do not allow for the predictability of these tax relief packages, do not allow this fiscal policy to work, do not allow for these jobs to be created, then I think it is going to be much more difficult for the two sides to come together and to come to an agreement. And with that we will have to have a vote. We will have to have a budget. The majority will rule. Sometimes we will win; sometimes we will not. But right now we have the votes, we believe, in order to continue to steer a course back toward a balanced budget, but to do it in a way that respects the need to protect our country, to make sure that we are able to prosecute successfully the wars that we are involved in, to make sure that we can get our economy back on its feet and growing again, and that we can create opportunities far into the future for our kids and our grandkids. Those are things that we hope to be able to accomplish in this budget. The interesting thing I would just say in closing is that the Blue Dog budget that the gentleman from Tennessee is advocating raises the debt ceiling. It is kind of interesting that it is not without its flaws. It raises the debt ceiling. In fact, over the period of time of the budget, almost as much, not quite as much, but almost as much as the budget that we will be presenting here on the floor hopefully by the end of this week, the interesting thing about it is that the debt ceiling will go up under the exact budget that the gentleman from Tennessee was advocating. I respect the fact that the budget came forward, but it is one thing to say that our budget will require the debt ceiling to be increased. It is another thing to look inward and to say, guess what, we are doing the exact same thing. And why? Because the choices are pretty tough at this particular time. We have got to make sure that we fund our defense and homeland security. We have to make sure that we fund those important programs such as making sure that our seniors have a prescription drug benefit. And we have to make sure that at that same time we are able to keep the economy growing and providing opportunities for the future. If we assume those few things, there are very few choices left except to raise taxes; and as I say, that is where there is a departure on both sides. We will not raise taxes. That is not what we are going to do in this budget. That is not what we are advocating at this time in our economic history. And that is the reason that we oppose this particular motion to instruct. We believe that we should manage our economy, which includes our debt ceiling, in a responsible way. And we believe our budget does that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me, through the Speaker, make it very clear to the people who are watching around the United States and around the world that maintaining the credit of the United States is one of the most important leadership and governing principles that must be adhered to. I certainly understand why there will be Members who come to the floor who want to shake the markets, who want to suggest to people that maybe our credit is not good, who want to talk down the economy, want to provide some fear in the marketplace about what exactly will happen to our debt, but I just want to make it very clear that that will not be the principle of the governing party and the majority. There has never been a doubt that the United States will pay its debts when they are due. We have never defaulted on our loans, regardless of who was the party in control. As a result, our creditworthiness is second to none. We have a very low borrowing cost, and as a result, we waste very little tax dollars on interest now, particularly compared to historic highs. Without increasing the debt limit in a timely manner, the Department of Treasury would have to jump through a myriad of hoops to reallocate funds to ensure debts are paid. This is a completely unnecessary and ridiculous waste of their resources, and it is an unnecessary signal to the markets. So there will be people who come to the floor, and they unfortunately did it all day today. I heard friends of mine from the other side who came to the floor today with hope in their voice that the economy was going to get worse, that the marketplace was going to be shaken, that there was going to be negativity out there about the economy. They may want to talk it down. They may want to try and scare people about the future, but as I say and make it clear, our country has never defaulted. We will not at this time. No one is trying to hide anything. I mean, my gosh, it is 8 o'clock on the East Coast. My constituents are watching, 7 o'clock in Iowa and in Texas. I believe that makes it Mountain Time; it is 6 o'clock, and 5 o'clock in California. No one is hiding. We are all here talking about the debt. So no one is hiding. The Gephardt rule, as it is called, kind of an interesting name, does not hide anything. It makes it very clear that when we pass a budget, we extend the debt in order to cover that fiscal policy; and I want to make that sure to our marketplace and to the people that are watching. Our credit is secure; The full faith and credit of the United States is secure. So while tonight, for approximately an hour, we will hear negativity, we will hear talking down the economy, we will hear hoping that things get worse, let me just suggest to my colleagues that things are actually getting a little better, and that is good news. We are better off than we were 4 years ago. That will continue as we continue to climb out of the Clinton recession that was inherited in the year 2000. We did exactly the right thing at the right time to get the economy back on its feet, and we have seen the strongest growth in our economy over 20 years as a result. People are going back to work. There are now more people working in our country than at any time in American history. Sure, more people need to go back to work. Sure, we want to create more jobs. Yes, we want more entrepreneurs, but please do not allow those who are talking down the economy, wringing their hands, hoping people will be negative, we believe, toward the future, for probably some political purpose. Do not allow that to shake your confidence in the United States, because what we are doing here is far more important than the unfortunate politics that seem to be taking over the floor these days as we move closer and closer to November. So maintaining our credit has always been first and foremost for a fiscal policy, and we will do that again as a governing majority. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. It is hard to believe that the Democrats are coming to the floor today and trying to spread fear and make sure that people feel that they are not better off. They ask the question, Are you better off than 4 years ago? They hope you are not. Republicans not only hope you are, but will work to make sure you are. The Democrats have no plan to balance the budget. All they offer from their nominee is higher taxes and bigger government. The seniors, for the first time since the Medicare plan was put into place in 1965, have choices as a result of a Republican Congress and President Bush. Students have received two times the increase of education funding since Republicans took office, three times for special education alone. We have more workers working in this country than at any time in American history. We had the strongest growth in the last 6 months. In the last 20 years we have not seen this kind of growth. Interest rates are at the lowest ever. The other side has stopped an energy plan going on now 6 years, and now they stand at the gas pump and wring their hands and wonder why gas prices are as high as they are. Democrats hope you are not better off. Republicans will work to make sure you are better off.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do not recall the gentleman from Virginia standing with me on that Nussle-Cardin plan. I appreciate the rendition of history, but I wish he would have voted for that bill as well. I do not think any of the Members on the floor here today voted for that. It would have been a beautiful thing.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start by saying that I am sure, because I know the gentleman from Illinois to be a very honorable Member and friend, and I am sure all of those facts that he just cited were true about 1997 and the economy of the 1990s. Let us just assume for a moment that they are. It was peacetime. I mean, does the gentleman think there is a difference between the 1990s and the period of the 2000s since what happened when we inherited the Clinton recession of 2000 and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon of 2001, and the war with Afghanistan and now Iraq? Does the gentleman think there is just a little bit of difference between the 1990s and this next century that we are in? Maybe just a little. Maybe just a smidgen, it might be different. And even though we found all sorts of spending priorities during the 1990s, education and the environment that the gentleman talked about, it is interesting that during those 1990s, we did not seem to find the priority of national defense or intelligence or homeland security, or a prescription drug benefit for seniors. All of that time that President Clinton was working on all of these great policies of growing the size of government, taking more money out of the pockets of families with that huge tax increase of 1993, during all of that expansion of government, not once during that time could there be found the priorities of defense, intelligence, homeland security, and a drug benefit for seniors. So I understand that there were different priorities back then. It was a different decade. We were at peace. We are now at war. This is not a time to raise taxes on the American family. We are just now coming out of a recession. This is not the time to raise taxes on business. We are now finally getting back on our feet; and it is not the time to say to people, we need more of your money. This is exactly the time, exactly the time to say that those tax cuts should be predictable, they should be permanent, people should be able to bank on them, they should be able to plan for their futures, they should be able to make decisions that affect their families and their small businesses and their farms without having the peril of somebody coming to the floor and suggesting now, for some reason, that we have to start paying for tax cuts, and then voting just the opposite when the actual tax cut comes to the floor for a vote. It is interesting that on one hand they say we should pay for tax cuts and then the actual vote; and boy, I know they are kind of tricky, because just that vote, that specific vote on tax cuts, when that vote comes to the floor, they seem to be very interested in voting for that tax bill. Let me just review some things, though, because I know my friends on the Democratic side are very interested in talking down the economy. They are interested in saying, those tax cuts have not worked. I want to tell my colleagues that the tax cuts have worked. Let us just review a few things. Payroll employment increased by 288,000 jobs in April. We have the most people working in America at any time in our history, today. More people are working in America today than at any time in our history. Manufacturing employment increased by 37,000 jobs over the last 3 months alone. It was the best 3-month period since those boom days of the 1990s, since 1998; the best 3-month period since 1998. Unemployment was down to 5.6 percent in April from its high of 6.3 percent last June. Unemployment insurance claims have fallen to their lowest level in 3\1/2\ years since we inherited that Clinton recession of 2000. Real growth in the economy, which is measured by our gross domestic product, was at 4.2 percent at an annual rate for the first quarter of 2004, following an 8.2 percent growth in the third quarter. It is the highest quarterly rate in over 2 decades, and the last 6 months have been the fastest growth in over 20 years. Manufacturing activity soared at the end of 2003 and into the beginning of 2004, registering its highest pace in 20 years. So keep talking about the bad economy, keep using it as a political issue, keep trying to talk down the marketplace, keep trying to deliver all that bad news, because it is not here. People are going back to work. The economy is improving. People are making things. Because as my friend, the gentleman from Kansas, said, they have the money to spend. We are not taking it out here in Washington. It is interesting that when Democrats come to the floor and they say pay as you go, guess what? They are not the ones willing to pay. When they say pay as you go, it means there is a tax increase buried some place, there is a secret tax plan that is available for anyone to look at, and it is called tax the rich. Well, hold on to your wallets, folks, because they think you are rich, and they are coming after you. And every single time they talk about taxing people, they are talking about taxing you. They are talking about taxing people who are married. They are talking about families with children. They are talking about small businesses that are creating the most jobs. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are concerned about when we say this is not the time to raise taxes and this is not the time to talk about paying as you go, because these tax relief packages that we have passed are getting the economy back on its feet and revenue, as a result, is coming into the Federal Government. We are receiving more revenue into the Federal Government than we are allowing people to keep in their pockets through these tax cuts that we are promoting on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I know it is working. And the reason I know it is working is because 102 Democrats voted for them. They know, including the gentleman from North Dakota, who voted on April 28 to cut taxes without paying for them, because he knows, he knows what that means to the economy of North Dakota. He knows what it means to the economy of Iowa. He knows what it means to the economy of the United States. He knows where jobs are created. I know that because I have served with him every year he has served in the Congress, and I know the gentleman understands that that is how jobs are created. That is why he voted for these things. I do not argue with the fact that he votes for them. What I am concerned about is that the leadership has forced the gentleman to come down here with a political issue. The last two gentlemen have failed in their attempts to try a political issue on the floor, and so now they roll out the gentleman from North Dakota. But the gentleman from North Dakota, I know, is smarter than that, because on May 5 he voted to cut taxes without paying for them, because he knows that you do not have to pay for some of these tax cuts, because they generate economic activity. They generate that economic activity in farms and small businesses, putting people back to work; and as a result of those people back to work, they pay into the Federal Government in taxes as taxpayers, and the result is more revenue coming into the Federal Government. The gentleman knows that. That is why he votes consistently to reduce taxes. I just wish that he would stop trying to tie our hands for the future; trying to tie our hands, just as the economy is getting back on its feet, blaming tax cuts for all the red ink when we know because of two wars, when we know because of the gut-punch of 9- 11, when we know because of the bail-out of the economic crisis that occurred after the terrorists attacks, that we know because of huge increases for defense and homeland security, appropriately so, to protect the country, we have had to borrow money. We borrowed money deliberately, at a time with interest rates being very low, to do two important things: make sure that our country was protected and make sure that our economy could get back on its feet and start growing again. Well, our country is protected and continues to be protected; and we will all do whatever it takes to make sure it continues to be protected. But we also have to make sure that it continues to grow, because while we can be secure in our border, we also have to be secure around the kitchen tables of North Dakota and Iowa and the rest of the country. We want to make sure those families who are faced with sometimes much more perplexing issues than what we face here in Congress, like how am I going to pay for college; and how am I going to pay for the health care bills; and how am I going to deal with clothing my kids when I have been out of work for a little while, those are important issues that they face, and we want to make sure they have all of the resources necessary in order to make those important decisions around their kitchen tables with their families. The only way to do that is to continue the policy which has worked, which has gotten our economy back on its feet, and will continue to work if we allow it to do so, without being hamstrung by a special Senate rule that only stands in the way of making sure that those tax cuts can be predictable, that they can be permanent, and they can continue the job of making sure the economy grows. Let us vote down this special rule that will only cause tax increases in the future, and let us support the underlying budget which controls spending, which grows the economy, and which makes sure our country is protected. That is the budget we need to pass. We do not need to have a Senate rule, a rule from the other body to tie our hands for tax reform, tax relief, tax simplification in the future. That is what the gentleman, unfortunately, and probably inadvertently, would accomplish if, in fact, this plan passed. He wants to continue to support tax cuts; so do we. We want the economy to continue to grow, and the only way to do that is to vote down this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have been doing a little research over on this side. Again for the third time in a row, the minority rushes to the floor with a breathless motion on fiscal catastrophe, as it was announced, and how if we vote for tax cuts without paying for them, all sorts of red ink will be used on charts all over America. My goodness, you had to almost ruin a printer to print all that red ink on that poster. It is fascinating to me that someone who would be so concerned, so breathlessly concerned about the fiscal catastrophe that awaits the United States if, in fact, you vote for taxes without paying for them would, as I have discovered in roll call No. 144, which was just voted on here, let us see, May 5, where the gentleman who just spoke voted for just such a proposition. He voted for tax cuts without paying for them. And now he rushes down here to the floor saying it is an important principle of fiscal sanity to pay as you go. I know another principle and that is actions speak louder than words. In this instance, the actions of the gentleman voting not only on May 5, and that is what I was doing some more research on, not only on May 5 did he do that and joined 109 Democratic colleagues doing the exact same thing, wringing their hands at home, decrying tax cuts, trying to talk down the economy and telling how tax cuts are the bane of our existence and yet put out the same press release that day voting in favor of tax cuts and how that was so important to families and small businesses and I am sure the word ``farmer'' may have even been used in the gentleman's press release. Then I discovered that on April 28, in a roll call vote, No. 138, I see yet again the gentleman from North Dakota voted in favor of tax cuts without paying for them. Once again I wonder, paying as you go, if that is such an important principle, why would the gentleman's actions, not his words, his words, of course, are we should pay for these things. We are facing a fiscal catastrophe, the gentleman just said. Yet he comes to the floor and votes not once but twice, and I am just wondering how the gentleman will vote tomorrow on tax cuts to make sure that we do not have a tax increase at the end of this year for the 10 percent bracket, the bill that I believe is going to be on the floor tomorrow. I wonder if the gentleman is going to vote for making sure that that tax is not increased on his farmers and small businesspeople. Many of them probably are similar to mine in my small towns and my small counties in Iowa. My guess is that he is not only going to vote the way he did the other two times in favor of cutting taxes without paying for them twice before, but I would bet he is going to do it tomorrow. And I know why. Because the gentleman is going to argue that that is good for the economy, and he is right; and that it is good for those small business people, and he is right; and that it actually does create jobs, and he is right; and that it is unfair to tax families with children, to have an automatic snap-back tax increase at the end of the year, and he would be correct; and that it is unfair to penalize people who are married; and he would be correct. And so again the puzzlement occurs to this gentleman and so many others why it is that he says on one day pay as you go, but come to the floor on the next day and say, but I really did not mean it for those tax bills that I am in favor of that help my constituents. And it would suggest to me that maybe there is a new saying and it is, ``Do as I say, not as I do.'' So we have a situation here yet again, the third time that the exact same motion comes to the floor, and I am wondering if this is not for political purposes that you would on one instance say you have to pay for them and on another instance vote for those exact same tax relief bills as they come to the floor. The economy is just now finally starting to come off the ground from where it has been, starting to create jobs, starting to see that jobless rate come down and people go back to work. And I know that there are many of my friends on the other side that are just desperately hanging on to any possible bad news about the economy because they know they are losing that issue politically for the fall election, and so they are desperately holding on to the last vestiges of that issue. But I would suggest that what is good for our economy and our constituents now is to not have an automatic tax increase, that it does in itself pay for itself with the increase of economic development that is happening in our country. In fact, this year alone, CBO projected a $35 billion increase from one year to the next, paying for those tax cuts with the economic growth. Oh, a lot of red has come to the floor. Another big red chart has come to the floor. Let us see how the gentleman who is about to speak voted. I can do that research pretty quickly. Oh, interesting, the gentleman from Virginia with another chart on the floor with a lot of red voted in favor of those same tax bills, not paying for them but voting for them, and I will bet I can find a press release telling his constituents how important those tax cuts were as we face this fall's election. I have a suspicion that this is a political vote, and I would encourage my colleagues to treat it as such. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I only have one question. Why would he vote to cut taxes on one day without paying for them and then come to the floor with a motion the very next day saying he does not have to pay for those taxes?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am looking here. I do not see ``McDermott'' anywhere on the list.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, there were so few who did, it would have stuck out like a sore thumb. That was not one of my finest hours, I would have to say. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. NUSSLE. I do not, Mr. Speaker. Let us do some checking on that.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, as those who have followed previous debates on the administration's proposed overtime rule changes may know, my position is clear. I have voted a number of times to uphold overtime protection for workers in Iowa and across the United States. In the future, I will continue my commitment to Iowa's workers. However, today's motion to instruct introduced by the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, is nothing more than.a twisted procedural gimmick. The ridiculous motion would instruct conferees to act on a bill that was signed into law months ago. There are no conferees to instruct. I will keep standing up for Iowa's working families as we consider this matter in the future, but those debates should be real and meaningful. As such I will vote yes on the motion to table.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed. The gentleman who offers the motion to instruct conferees says, gee, it would be nice if we had a rule that tax cuts had to be paid for. Well, that is not what the instruction says. The instruction says they should. It is not a, gee, it would be nice. The gentleman just voted for a tax cut that was not offset, was not paid for. In fact, he joined 109 Democratic colleagues who voted not to pay for tax cuts. In fact, what is even more interesting is that the same gentleman, and I respect his position, because it is how I voted, so it is hard to complain when somebody joins you on a vote, I do not mean it that way, voted just last week with 101 other colleagues for the marriage penalty relief, without offsetting pay-as-you-go requirements. So on the one hand, the gentleman is saying we ought to have a rule, we ought to have a rule around here that you pay for things. It is important to do that, because we are in a hole and you ought to stop digging. I understand. We have heard that rhetoric a lot. Except, he says, do not apply it to me, is what the gentleman is saying. Instruct everybody else for other tax bills, but not the one I just voted for this week, or not the one I voted for last week. Let us have a pay-as-you-go rule, but let us not apply it to us right now because it is kind of politically popular to vote for this. The difference is that on our side of the aisle we know and we agree with the gentleman that tax cuts often pay for themselves in a way that stimulates the economy, stimulates growth, puts people back to work, generates economic growth and development, and drives revenues into the Treasury to the tune of, this year, what we know already from what CBO says, is about $200 billion more revenue. Even with tax reduction, even with those tax cuts, $200 billion is what CBO estimates now. Just yesterday, in The Washington Post, it was revealed that that number is only going up, is what we are hearing. So on the one hand, just 5 minutes ago the gentleman voted for tax relief without paying for it and now rushes to the floor with a rule that says but from now on and for everybody else, it is fair to, quote- unquote, pay for tax cuts. I think we should be consistent; and just like in the past, we should consistently say that in this instance we should not tie our hands when it comes to creating jobs, when it comes to making sure that married people are not penalized, when it comes to not raising taxes on families with children, when it comes to AMT relief that people are being hit with now, this alternative minimum tax, that we should provide that kind of relief, and we should do it in a way that does the job now and gets the economy going, as opposed to putting some arbitrary rule on, which I would argue if you vote 5 minutes ago one way, and then come back here and say, well, really I did not mean that, which vote do you not mean? Is it the vote for tax relief, or is it the vote for the rule? So I would hope that people do not tie our hands when it comes to this, what is called pay-as-you-go. When it comes to taxes, I have said it before and I will say it again, you may think the government pays for taxes. The only people in America who pay for taxes are taxpayers, and they are the people who deserve the relief, and what you are trying to do is cause automatic tax increases for this country by tying hands and by putting arbitrary rules in, and I do not believe that is the right thing to do for this economy. It is finally back on its feet, it is finally creating jobs, and we need to make sure that continues.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to someone who exemplifies the meaning of public service. I want to join Kitty's constituents in expressing my sadness on the retirement of Iowa State Senator Kitty Rehberg after 8 years of dedicated service to our State. Instead of spending several months each year in Des Moines, Senator Rehberg is choosing to spend more time in Rowley with her family, particularly her supportive husband, Frank, and their grandchildren. I have known Kitty for many years, and have been proud to watch a former staff member achieve such a record of success. While working for me as a district representative in Iowa, she showed her dedication to my constituents. Once she was elected to the Iowa Senate, I watched her define the meaning of hard work on behalf of her constituents. People could agree or disagree with her on the issues, but no one could ever disagree that she worked hard every single day on her constituents' behalf. For those who follow her in her seat, and for her colleagues she will not return to next year, they have a tough void to fill. Kitty has set the bar high on service to Iowa. If they are half as hard working as Kitty, Iowa will continue to benefit. Below I have included Iowa Senate Resolution No. 153, which honors Senator Kitty Rehberg. I wish Kitty continued success and many, many quality hours with her family and friends. It is well deserved. Iowa Senate Resolution No. 153 Whereas, Senator Kitty Rehberg is retiring from legislative office after completing two terms in office as a State Senator; and Whereas, Senator Rehberg's distinguished career as a State legislator has included service as the Chairperson of the Small Business, Economic Development and Tourism Committee in the Seventy-ninth General Assembly, as Chairperson of the Economic Growth Committee in the Eightieth General Assembly, and as Chairperson of the Education Appropriations Subcommittee in the Seventy-seventh and Seventy-eighth General Assemblies; and Whereas, Senator Rehberg has also served as Vice Chairperson of the Education Committee and on many other standing committees throughout her 8 years of legislative service and has been an influential and devoted legislator in this state; and Whereas, Senator Rehberg has been influential in the passage of legislation in areas of economic and rural development, and education, and has championed the interests of her constituents; and Whereas, Senator Rehberg has served honorably and has unselfishly given of her time and efforts to further the interests of the State of Iowa and to provide beneficial programs for the citizens of Iowa: Now therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate, That the Senate pay tribute to Senator Kitty Rehberg for her devoted service to the Iowa General Assembly and the citizens of this state and wish her the very best in the years ahead; and be it further Resolved, That an official copy of this Resolution be prepared and presented to Senator Rehberg.

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 2004 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 501 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through April 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 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 now show budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2008. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. A separate allocation for the Medicare program, as established under section 401(a)(3) of the budget resolution, is shown for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal years 2004 through 2013. 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 2004 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. This table also compares the current level of total discretionary appropriations with the section 302(a) allocation for the Appropriations Committee. These comparisons are 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 either the section 302(a) allocation or the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The last table gives the current level for 2005 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 501 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 501 of the budget resolution, which creates a point or order against appropriations 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.