Jim Nussle

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 2006 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 401 of the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95). This status report is current through April 21, 2006. The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 95. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2006 because those years are not considered for enforcement of spending aggregates. The second table compares, by authorizing committee, the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 95 for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal years 2006 through 2010. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2006 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation as well as the 302(a) allocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2007 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 401 of H. Con. Res. 95. This list is needed to enforce section 401 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills or amendments thereto that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sister Catherine Dunn, President of Clarke College in Dubuque, Iowa who will retire on June 30th 2006, after serving in this position for 22 years. Sister Catherine came to Clarke in 1973 and started her service to Clarke and the Dubuque Community as a member of the education department faculty. In 1979 she became vice president of institutional advancement. On January 27th, 1984, she became Clarke's 14th president. The first few months for the leader of any organization can be challenging, hectic, and perhaps chaotic at times. Sr. Catherine would face all of that and more, as her strength and fortitude were tested 111 days later, when on May 17th, 1984, fire destroyed one-third of the historic buildings on campus. In the spirit of Sister Mary Frances Clarke who founded the school in 1843, and propelled by students who hung banners proclaiming `Clarke Lives,' Sr. Catherine oversaw an aggressive rebuilding project. Rising from the ashes were a new library, a chapel, music performance hall, administrative offices and a glassed atrium, which were dedicated in October of 1986. Most importantly, it showed the resilience of a woman who would not let devastation chart a negative destiny for the school or her presidency. Since then the school has had several other additions and expansions including a new sports and recreation complex, an activity center and increased student housing. For most new presidents that would have been challenge enough, but Sr. Catherine's spirit reached far beyond 1550 Clarke Drive. She has served on the boards of numerous local, regional, and national education and civic organizations. She has served on the executive committee of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) and chaired the organization's tax policy committee. In 1989, she was appointed to the Iowa Transportation Commission, making history in 1994 when she was named chair of the commission. She was the first woman to hold the position in the 81-year history of the commission. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to Clarke College President Sr. Catherine Dunn. The many lives she has touched will never be known, but that work, through others, will live on. We celebrate, we honor and we will remember Clarke College's 14th president.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 376, which the House is about to consider.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be here as the chairman of the Budget Committee to propose and debate the budget resolution for this fiscal year 2007, the blueprint that will guide the Congress' spending and revenue decisions for the coming year. It is not easy to write a budget ever. It is particularly challenging to write a budget when you have to deal with an economic recession, when you have to deal with the worst terrorist attack that has ever hit practically any nation, but particularly ours on our own shores. It is difficult to write one when you are at war, when you have a whole new priority of homeland security that was never even considered just 10 short years ago, or the largest natural disaster ever to affect the United States called Hurricane Katrina. It is never easy to write a budget, and it is particularly challenging to do that when those kinds of things hit you not just one at a time but all at one time. Today we are going to hear a lot about politics. You know, there is this new movement around the country that I think is pretty important, and that is that we need new science and math education for our kids because we are falling behind, but I think we probably ought to add history to that, too. I love how the Democrats come to the floor today, and this is modern history for Democrats. In 2001, George W. Bush took office, and look at the deficit we have today. Nothing happened in between. Of course, there have been 6 years that have occurred, and during those 6 years we had those things like an economic recession, like Hurricane Katrina, like 9/11, like a global war on terror, the need to deal with homeland security. And all of those priorities not only were cheerfully voted by both sides, but the national debt not only went up under all of those votes, but in fact the Democrats proposed even more spending to drive that debt even higher. And probably the most humorous conversation was the one I just heard on welfare reform, how the President is the one who ushered in welfare reform, President Clinton? This is the same President Clinton who vetoed welfare reform twice, and in fact had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support the Republican-passed welfare reform, which was the first opportunity for us to reform entitlement spending and to deal with some huge challenges that gave us the first surpluses in history. So this budget is always going to be a challenge to write, but it is particularly going to be challenging if all we are going to hear on the other side is complaints and politics, and not any serious proposals to deal with it. Is this budget going to please everyone? No. You have just heard quite a few complaints about how this budget is not going to please Democrats, and I can certainly understand why. But this budget takes into account the conversations that we have heard from our constituents back home in particular, and I believe this is the budget that is the right budget and the plan to keep our country moving forward with a strong growing economy, with a secure homeland, to provide endless opportunities both today and tomorrow for our kids and our families. It is guided by what we think are our most important priorities and it is based on a clear set of principles: Strength, spending control, and reform. And let me just touch on these briefly. First on strength. This budget will further build on our Nation's greatest strengths, which include our Nation's national defense and homeland security, and the robust growth of our Nation's economy and job markets as a result of the plans and proposals that we have passed on this floor over the last 5 years. Spending control. This budget will continue our efforts to control spending across the board by further restraining the nonsecurity discretionary spending, and building on our progress from last year to reform government, achieve savings in mandatory entitlement programs. In addition to those reforms, we also believe that it is time for us to reform the budget process and continue the work that has already been done. This budget will begin to reform the budget process by actually dealing with emergency spending. And I will come back to all of these, but let me first touch on our strengths. The economy. As I just noted, our underlying strength comes from the Nation's economy, and in the past 4 years, 5 years, it really has delivered. I mean, we have seen some wonderful things as a result of the American people being able to spend and invest and use their own resources. After adjusting for inflation, our economy has grown at a robust average of better than 3 percent a year since 2003. Nearly 5 million new jobs have been created in America as a result of this economy, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 4.8 percent, which not only is historically very low, but by many economists that is considered full employment. Even in the face of higher energy prices, which we are working to deal with, and the worst natural disaster on record, our economy has proven remarkably resilient and strong, growing, creating jobs, and increasing personal incomes. Clearly, the real credit for the growth goes to the people who do the work in this country, who work and save and invest and create jobs and allow our economy to continue to grow. But we in Congress did support their efforts by lowering their tax burdens, and this budget continues that because we believe there should be no tax increases, as opposed to the Democrats who propose tax increases in their alternative budget. And we did this because of our fundamental belief that the people back home really do make better decisions about their daily lives, about their businesses, about their farms, about their families and communities than the Federal Government ever could make for them. As a result of giving Americans more control over their money, we have seen more investment, more jobs, greater opportunities in our country, and as a further direct result of this growth from what Americans have done, revenue has come pouring into the Federal Treasury. In fact, last year we saw Federal revenues increase by almost 15 percent in one year. Now, I realize we have got to stop and just highlight this because if you have been listening to the rhetoric on the other side, you will believe that the bane of all of our illnesses is because we have reduced taxes and that somehow tax cuts have caused this government to fall off its pedestal, when in fact reducing taxes has actually brought in 15 percent more revenue growth to our Federal Government, and it is because our economy works. When you are allowing people to keep their money and invest it on their own, it creates opportunities and jobs and business development, and as a result of that more people pay more taxes and that brings more revenue into the government. In short, our economy has gone from recession just a few short years ago to a strong sustained period of growth, and to ensure that that growth and strength continues to be in an upward momentum our budget does not increase taxes. Second is national security. This budget will also continue to provide whatever is needed to support our American troops and to ensure our Nation's defense remains the strongest in the world. We do not have a secret plan, as you will find in the Democratic alternative substitute, that basically says we are not going to fund the war after next year. It is kind of a secret plan to basically say one of two options. We are either going to bring all the troops home like the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to do or we are not going to fund them so they are able to claim balance. They have basically put no more money, no support to our troops in the field over in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President's budget, not including war funding, has requested an increase of 7 percent to ensure that our men and women have the opportunity to support and defend our Nation and our budget will accommodate that request. We will also, as we have for the past two budgets, place $50 billion in reserve to fund those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we know that it is going to take a commitment in years to come and we plan to support that commitment, not claim balance and not have some secret plan that is either going to underfund it or bring them home before their job is done. But even as we provide those resources, we also believe that the administration needs to get the message that we need a full accounting of how this money is being spent and what the implications are for the future. Particularly in the area of defense, we have got to do a better job to ensure that every dollar that we invest and that we put into this critical area is hitting its intended target. It makes our country safer. I cannot think of any activity that deserves more diligent oversight than our national defense. For homeland security we will provide whatever is needed to ensure our homeland at the border, in our country, in our cities, in our rural areas, whatever is needed. The President has proposed 3.8 percent of an increase and our budget accommodates that request. But just as with defense, we have got to do a better job in this new Department of Homeland Security to make sure these monies are being spent wisely and are actually working to make our Nation more secure. The second big principle on which we write this budget is controlling spending. Let's start with what we call ``discretionary spending.'' With the necessary shift of our Nation's priorities to provide for these areas of, after 9/11 as an example, we have come to employ kind of a shorthand to effectively divide this discretionary spending into two categories. Let me do that for people who are watching. We have security spending, which involves our national defense and our homeland security, and what we call ``nonsecurity,'' which is everything else. That is where you will find education, veterans, agriculture, the environment, et cetera. So you have security and nonsecurity. And as most of my colleagues will detail in this debate, we increased our security appropriations funding at a truly incredible rate over the past few years to deal with the challenges that our Nation has needed in regard to security. But that said, when we decided that our Nation's security was our highest priority, it also meant that everything else needed work and that everything else must come after, although many seem to regularly forget the Federal Government simply does not have an infinite supply of money, nor should it. So when we decide to increase spending in one area, you have got to determine how to pay for it and how to reduce spending in other areas. That is what budgeting is all about. Last year we held our nonsecurity spending to a freeze tighter than the previous year's 1.3 percent growth and certainly a marked improvement over the previous 5-year average of 6.3 percent. This year the administration has asked for a freeze, according to CBO's estimate, for all the nondefense, nonsecurity spending in our budget. We will assume that freeze is for nonsecurity spending. We believe that our security must come first or none of these other programs will matter much. That said, it is important to note that while our budget sets an overall number, it is the Appropriations Committee who determines how that money is allocated. Clearly there are high priority programs that receive and should receive increases. But in order to provide those increases, they have to have offsetting reductions and eliminations of other programs, and we know the Appropriations Committee can do this and will do this. Last year alone they eliminated somewhere near 110 specific programs in order to ensure that we fund those programs that are higher priorities. Now, let's get to where the real rubber is going to hit the road with this budget and where it needs to hit the road. This is the funding that is truly out of control. Our biggest challenge in Federal budgeting is the problem of mandatory, automatic, entitlement spending. That is now two-thirds of the budget, and two-thirds of the budget needs some attention. Well, we provide the attention while the Democrats, you can hear the crickets. They do not even look at it. There is no reform in their budget for the mandatory programs. Just do not worry about two-thirds of the budget. We are only going to talk about one-third, they say. We need to work on reforming these programs. They are important to the people back home. They are not always doing the job they need to do. We need to constantly reform and weed the garden to make sure that garden can continue to grow and make sure that we can eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse in those programs. Currently, our mandatory spending is growing at 5.5 percent a year. That is faster than our economy is growing. It is faster than inflation, and it is certainly faster than any of our means to be able to sustain it. To put it another way, if our budget were balanced right now today, our entitlements would drive it right back into deficit; and so we have got to deal with these challenges which, of course, are highlighted probably most dramatically because there are 78 million baby boomers who are beginning to turn 60 this year, and medical costs are skyrocketing, and there is a steady decline in the number of workers for each retiree. The problem only gets worse. So we have got to address this. We have got to acknowledge on both sides of the aisle that ignoring this problem, offering no solution on how to fix it, and fighting against those who are trying to help is not going to benefit any one person, is not going to benefit any group. Certainly it is not going to be able to give us the opportunity to be able to deal with these programs in the future. Just throwing more money at programs, my goodness, you would think somebody would get real, get a more creative budget than this just to throw more money at things and assume that they are actually going to work. We need to reform these programs. Last year, for the first time in nearly a decade, we took the first step to reform some of these largest programs. We saved $40 billion in the process. We allowed better delivery of these programs to the people they were intended for. This year's budget will continue to build on those savings by yet again reforming the mandatory programs and establishing that we should, on an annual basis, reform government, even if it is a small amount. I know people around here say why are you bothering with $6.8 billion. Well, that may be small to some of you, but it is not small to the taxpayers who have to pay the bills around here. This budget will continue to build on those savings by, again, reforming mandatory programs and establishing this annual process. Finally, let me talk about reform, which this budget is based on. To some extent, we are still learning lessons from Hurricane Katrina. We should continue to always learn the lessons; but one of them that became, I think, very clear is that if we do not control spending, if we do not get good control of spending, it becomes very difficult to manage unforeseen events that inevitably face us. One certainly could have foreseen that we were going to have a hurricane. We have them every year. We have them every year that I have been in Congress; but no one, no one, could have foreseen the devastation that has occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and no one would have expected it to be built into anybody's budget. We did not build it into ours. The President did not build it into his. Certainly the Democrats did not build it into theirs. In fact, this year they build no money into their budget for emergencies. Now, wait a minute. I realize this may surprise you. It was in all the papers. We had a disaster last year. We had an emergency. We had a hurricane. Not just a little one, but a big one. Why do we not at least plan for the little ones? Let us at least plan for the disasters that we know are coming.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the time, and I have not yielded.

Mr. NUSSLE. No, I do not.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. So while we are continuing to learn the lessons, Congress needs to plan for it. Congress needs to plan for these emergencies, and our budget does that. This year, not only will we build in a reform of our mandatory programs and further restrain our nonsecurity discretionary spending, but we need to reform the budget process as well to reflect the actual spending that is currently spent outside of that normal budget process, and it is called emergency spending, for many natural disasters where appropriate spending is certainly necessary. In addition to emergency reforms contained in this budget, we will continue the process of reforming the budget and reforming the budget process and how we make spending decisions throughout this year. We need to tackle earmarks. We need to tackle the sunsetting of programs that have outlasted their usefulness. We need to deal with line-item veto, and we will do this throughout this year. Let me just end by saying this. I do not think I need to remind anybody about the massive challenges and changes that our Nation has endured these past few years or the myriad of challenges that lie ahead. We have had enormous challenges in writing the budget. I do not shy away from any of them. I know it would be easy for somebody to just punt. Well, we decided we were going to meet each one of those challenges and deal with them, and every single year we have had a plan. Finally, this year, the Democrats rushed to the floor with a plan and suggest that they finally now have an idea on how they are going to balance the budget. We will take a look at that a little bit later. But we have had a plan every year, and our plan has worked, and we have been able to manage our deficits and our debt and our taxes and our economy and deal with so many important priorities in an appropriate way. We have kept our country going when many people, after some of these disasters, said our economy was going to collapse, that we were not going to be as powerful as we were in the past; but because of the leadership we have provided, much of which started in these blueprints, we believe we have been able to keep our country growing and growing strong. We have seen how the Nation's most fundamental priorities have shifted dramatically, some by circumstance, some by choice, but they have shifted; and we have managed through the process as best as we could. For the past three budgets, after recovering from the initial shock of 9/11, we have set a bold plan to shore up and strengthen our defense and homeland security, to get and keep our economy growing strong and creating jobs and controlling spending and continuing the process of reform and reducing the deficit, and the deficit has reduced. We followed that plan, and adjusting it to last year, making a down payment on the immense new hurricane spending. We have made real progress. But last year's hurricane served as a stark reminder that controlling the budget does not just happen one day out of the year. It is a long- term, step-by-step commitment that takes resolve. It takes more than one person to do it. It takes particularly in extraordinary circumstances a plan, and that is what we present today, our plan for fiscal year 2007. We need to pass it. We need to stick to it. We need to enforce it. Certainly if there are challenges, we need to adjust to it, but we need a plan. We need to work the plan. We need to enforce the plan, and we need to pass the plan today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I cannot find anything of what the gentleman from Texas just said in the budget. I am still looking. None of those policies exist. All of that is just kind of created out of whole cloth. I have looked through it. There is no tax on veterans. My goodness, what kind of rhetoric is that, taxes on veterans. My goodness. Not in here. You cannot find it. I defy you to find it. I don't see a tax on veterans. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and a member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a unanimous consent. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have to put on my glasses, these numbers are so small. I have to tell you, on page 63, I have it right here: veterans goes from $71.9 billion to $74.6 billion. $71.9 billion to $74.6 billion. I am trying to think now, mathematically that sounds like an increase. Maybe I am missing something, but 71 to 74. Let's see, that's a bigger number; 74, bigger, not a cut. That is an increase. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the Education Committee, my friend from California (Mr. McKeon).

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Does the gentlemen know that the Spratt alternative does the exact same thing?

Mr. NUSSLE. But is the money in there in this ``reckless'' plan the gentleman was suggesting?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to start with, I cannot let that go. In this body we have had bipartisanship with regard to national defense for quite a long time, and I hope that continues. But the irresponsibility of the statement that was just made has got to be called on the carpet. The Spratt alternative, everyone has a right to come to the floor with an alternative, and I have enormous respect for the gentleman from South Carolina. We are friends. We work together on budgets. He has the full right to come here. But don't come to the floor and tell us that we have an irresponsible plan, when your plan has the same numbers, number one; and, what is more, fills whatever gap you were just talking about with something called the ``tax gap,'' which is a $290 billion pipe dream that somehow you are going to collect money on past taxes from people who didn't pay them. Good luck. I would like to see you try. But that is how you fill the hole, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey. And what is more, and I will bet it is in your press release already, you claim balance by supporting the Spratt substitute. There is only one way you can claim balance, only one way. Do you know what that is? The way you claim balance is if you spend no more money on Afghanistan, no more money on Iraq, no more money supporting troops in the field, no more money for body armor, no more money for any benefits to those troops that are serving us so well over there in the Gulf. So for you to come to the floor, when we have bipartisanship on national defense 99.9 percent of the time around here, for you to come here and for you to suggest somehow that it is reckless for us to put that in our plan when you not only put it in the plan but then somehow claim balance, there is only one of two ways: You either have some secret plan to bring the troops home immediately, similar to evidently what was proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania here not that long ago, or you intend to have no money for those troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, my guess is that is not true, and my guess is I just went over the line. My guess is that is not what the gentleman intends, and my guess is that when the bill comes to the floor and when the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the Democrat ranking member and when the very distinguished gentleman from California, the chairman of the full Committee on National Defense and Armed Services comes to the floor, that that will not be the case whatsoever. But for you to increase the rhetoric down here about some irresponsible defense plan is irresponsible. I hope we can put that partisanship back in the bottle, because it ought to end at the shore when our men and women are fighting in harm's way, and I hope that the gentleman will check that rhetoric next time he comes to the floor, because we can have disagreements over a lot of things, but when the numbers are the same for the same reason because we have the same passion and concern about our men and women, please, I would ask the gentleman not to heighten the rhetoric so he can put out a press release. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Yes, they are. In fact, we put into the budget an emergency reserve fund for the purpose of funding that war, the same way Mr. Spratt does, the exact same amount.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. First and foremost, we added $1.3 billion back into the budget for that very purpose on CDBG. So the gentlewoman is mistaken on that point. Plus, I am glad the gentlewoman is at least one of the Members who have been willing to come here and be honest about her lack of support for the war and what that means for the budget priorities. If you do not support the war and you do not support the funding, it makes it clear why you would not put it in there and then claim balance. We are not trying to pretend to anybody that there are not going to be expenses in the outyears. We just do not know what they are. And nobody on either side knows what they are going to be. The Pentagon does not even know what they are going to be. We hope that they are minimal, but we have at least put the funding in the budget to demonstrate that. The difference is that in this alternative I think we are starting to see the glimmer of what the plan is really about, and that is a secret plan to bring the troops home, do it immediately, not fund in the outyears, claim balance, and as a result not support what we are doing. That is fine if that is what you want to do. I am glad you are at least being honest about that and that is exactly what is being planned in this budget. By not putting the money in there, by claiming balance, it is clear that there will be no more money for the war in Afghanistan and the war on terror after this budget year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.