Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the President said in his first address to the Congress that there were three reasons why this country may have to return to deficits: one was an emergency, one was a war, one was an economic recession. There is no one in this body who predicted any of those three. Warnings were not heeded? Wake up. There was not anybody warning about Osama bin Laden and September 11, so do not make those accusations. They are not true. That is why we find ourselves in a deficit. The President submitted a plan last year, and he will submit a plan this year, which he must do by law. The House last year passed a plan. The House will do so again this year, which we must do so by law. The other body, and I know I have to be careful, here. I do not want to say anything wrong, because we have our rules. However, my understanding is what I am allowed to say is that no budget passed in the other body last year. We will wait and see what happens this next year. The point I am getting at is that we need a plan in order to move forward. The President has proved he has a plan. The House has proved they have a plan. No other plans have been presented. No other plans have received a majority of support. No other plans have seen the light of day. Therefore, let us follow the plan that the President has laid out. Let us not allow us to get off track with absolutely no vision for the future, which is what is being suggested here tonight. Instead, let us reject the motion to recommit, and let us vote to prevent automatic cuts to Medicare, to veterans' health, to veterans' benefits, veterans' education, to crop insurance, and the like. These Draconian cuts are not necessary if we continue to follow the plan that the President and the House has laid out. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote to prevent these cuts on final passage.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again for the benefit of the Members, a yes vote is to follow the budget, follow our plan that we have put in place, and a no vote cuts Medicare, crop insurance, military health, child enforcement, veterans education, and the victims of September 11. It is that simple. Again, these are good discussions, nice philosophical arguments, but the facts are still the facts. If you vote for the motion to recommit, you are cutting Medicare. If you vote yes, you are allowing us to continue to follow the budget plan that has been put in place. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while I certainly enjoy the philosophical discussion of budget process and budget enforcement with maybe the best of them, the fact of the matter is that this is a real vote and you are either going to vote yes to prevent automatic sequestration of Medicare or you are not. It is either a vote to allow OMB, or not even allow, to force OMB for automatic sequestration of Medicare or you are not. So a vote in favor of this bill prevents Medicare cuts. A vote against this bill or a vote even for that matter for the motion to recommit allows Medicare cuts, and it is that simple. So we will have a lot of time to talk about budget process for many years, weeks, months to come, but the fact of the matter is that this is a real bill. It has real consequences, and therefore it should be passed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in favor of the bill before us, H.R. 5708. It is a bill that would prevent the automatic spending cuts in Medicare and other entitlements. Under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, entitlement and tax legislation must be offset on a year-by-year basis. We do this so that it will not increase the deficit or reduce the surplus.NOTICE If the 107th Congress, 2d Session, adjourns sine die on or before November 22, 2002, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 107th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on Monday, December 16, 2002, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Friday, December 13. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 16, 2002, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 17, 2002. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``Record@Sec.Senate.gov''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerkhouse.house.gov. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Congressional Printing Management Division, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. MARK DAYTON, Chairman. If such legislation is not offset, then automatic spending cuts, often called a sequester, are triggered in selected entitlement programs, including Medicare. This so-called pay-as-you-go rule, or what we refer to around here oftentimes as PAYGO, expired at the end of September; but the Office of Management and Budget is still required to trigger a sequester for previously enacted legislation. On various occasions during which the Federal Government was running large surpluses, this Congress saw fit to depart from the PAYGO rule for selected measures. This was the case with the tax bill enacted last year. Similarly this year on both sides of the aisle, we have promoted initiatives to provide prescription drug benefit coverage under Medicare, and we also did so without offsetting entitlement cuts or tax increases. But as we know, last year's recession and the shock of the terrorist attacks are still affecting our economy and have changed the budget outlook considerably. As a result, these and other such measures could trigger what we refer to as a PAYGO sequester several weeks after the Congress adjourns. Should we fail to enact this bill, the Office of Management and Budget has estimated that Medicare and other entitlements should be reduced by almost $125 billion in fiscal year 2003. Given various rules that exempt certain programs from sequestration, or that limit the size of any sequester, the maximum sequester would still be substantial, about $31 billion, all of which would have to be absorbed in 1 year. The magnitude of these cuts would be so great as to cause a 4 percent reduction in certain Medicare payments and cuts ranging in the billions in such key programs as crop insurance, the Department of Defense health fund, payments to States for child support enforcement, veterans education and readjustment, and the September 11 victims compensation fund. With the other body unable to pass even a budget this year, we were obviously unable to reach an agreement on legislation to extend PAYGO and other budget rules. It is my hope that this can be done next year as part of a normal budget process. I would close by reminding our Members and colleagues that the PAYGO rule contributed to the taming of deficits over the past 7 years, and it is my hope that a successor to PAYGO can be developed and coupled with caps on distressary appropriations. Mr. Speaker, in short, what this bill does is prevents automatic spending cuts in Medicare and other entitlements. As we know in years past, particularly in years of surplus while the PAYGO rule was used, it was not a perfect rule because it suggested that tax cuts and entitlement reforms go on what we call the PAYGO scorecard. Every year in a very routinized way, the last bill has taken care of this concern in years of surplus. That would have been the intention this year. However, this controversy looms as a result of the fact that we have had this triple budget threat of a downturn in the economy, the terrorist attacks, and the war on terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I believe all of us want to avoid Draconian cuts to Medicare and to other entitlements or to prevent tax increases in order to pay for this during a time of recession. What we need is a plan, and we have a plan. The House passed a plan. The President has endorsed that plan. If we stick to that plan, we can get back to surpluses, we can get back to fiscal discipline. But in the meantime, let us take this ministerial opportunity to take care of this unfortunate situation so that we can avoid something automatic happening while Congress is not in session. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NUSSLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I need to discuss that. I would be not only very happy to consider that, but I would even go further with regard to budget process issues. There are a number of them that should be discussed, now that we have an opportunity to do so. I would hope that we can do that quietly and calmly and with sober regard to the consequences of our actions. We have not done that. Unfortunately, people around here do not necessarily follow the budget process as well as they should; and as a result, demagoguery has reigned with regard to many of these budget rules in the past with regard to changes that we have tried to bring to the floor. I would hope that we could bring a budget process reform bill to the floor; I have written a PAYGO extension in the past that actually contemplated this very situation that we are in; and I would hope also caps.

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 2003 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 301 of House Concurrent Resolution 353, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House. This status report is current through October 11, 2002. 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. 353. 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 2003 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. 353 for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal years 2003 through 2007. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. A separate allocation for the Medicare program, as established under section 231(d) of the budget resolution, is shown for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal years 2003 through 2012. 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 2003 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2004 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 301 H. Con. Res. 353 printed in the Congressional Record on May 22, 2002. This list is needed to enforce section 301 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 122, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003. While the Congressional Budget Office has yet to release an estimate of this bill, it appears to adhere to both the letter and the spirt of the budget resolution agreed to by the House and supported by the President. Even once the defense bill just agreed to and the house-passed military construction bill became law, this CR will be fully consistent with the budget resolution. Under the leadership of the distinguished Chairman Young, the Appropriation Committee has gone to great lengths to avoid carrying forward almost $16 billion in one-time spending that was provided in response to September 11th. Moreover, the Appropriations Committee has accomplished this without sacrificing Congressional prerogatives. Rather than cede authority to the Executive branch to make these determinations, the Appropriations Committee has wisely identified each of these one-time expenditures. Once again, I want to commend Chairman Young and all the Members of the Appropriations Committee for their work on this bill. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the 302(a) allocations to the Committee on Appropriations established by H. Con. Res. 353, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2003. My authority to make these adjustments is derived from sections 201, 204 and 231(c) of the budget resolution. As reported to the House, H.R. 5559, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003, establishes an obligation limitation for programs, projects, and activities within the highway category (as defined by section 251(c)(7)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985). Section 204 of H. Con. Res. 353 provides for an increase in the outlay allocation to the Committee on Appropriations if: (1) the funds are distributed according to the formula contained in section 1102 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, (2) the obligation limitation established by the legislation for such programs exceeds $23,864,000,000, and (3) the accompanying increase in outlays does not exceed $1,180,000,000. I have reviewed the provisions of H.R. 5559, and have determined that those conditions have been met. Accordingly, I am increasing the fiscal year 2003 outlay allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations by $1,180,000,000. In addition, the conference report on H.R. 5010, the bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003, provides new budget authority for operations of the Department of Defense to prosecute the war on terrorism. Section 201 of H. Con. Res. 353 provides for an increase in the allocations and other levels in the budget resolution for amounts provided for this purpose, subject to an overall limitation of $10,000,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays flowing therefrom. The conference report on the Defense appropriations bill provides additional funds to prosecute the war on terrorism. Accordingly, I am increasing the fiscal year 2003 budget authority allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations by $1,000,000,000, and the outlay allocation by $743,000,000, which I estimate to be the outlays flowing from those appropriations. The resulting 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2003 to the House Committee on Appropriations is $749,096,000,000 in new budget authority and $785,191,000,000, in outlays.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It is both reasonable and necessary. At its essence, our debate is about the critical need to ensure Saddam Hussein fully understands our resolve to protect our citizens and to promote peace around the world. There is no question we would all prefer it if the path ahead did not include military action. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein may not allow us that option. The President and other members of his administration have provided a sober, convincing picture of the threats our nation faces from Iraq's current regime. As the President said earlier this week, ``While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.'' And this ``one place'' is led by an evil, evil dictator who directs his intense hatred toward America, Americans, our interests and our allies. Iraq's leadership has continued to aggressively pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction to add to his arsenal. We've all talked about these weapons but it's worth spelling out what they can be: chemical weapons, biological weapons and even nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein has shown his cruel willingness to use such devastating weapons against his own citizens and his neighboring countries in the past. I sincerely doubt he's had a change of heart. We must also not ignore the support of terrorism found in Hussein's Iraq. September 11, 2001 was a horrific reminder that terrorists are serious in their intent to harm Americans. This step is a continuation of the war against terrorism that our nation has been forced to undertake. It is Saddam Hussein himself who provides the final proof that we must act. He has a robust history of disregard of the international community and its laws. Time and again, he has willingly and defied the United Nations and the world community by ignoring the agreements he has made. He has constructed a wall of delay and deception that at times is as thick as the cloud of black smoke from the malicious oil fires that greeted our troops in 1991 as they liberated Kuwait. It's obvious that Iraq's current regime presents problems not just for the United States, but problems for international peace and stability. We can not deny the seriousness of the situation, and I believe America should provide its leadership for the sake of peace and justice. The President has earned our confidence through his leadership since last fall's terrorist attacks. The President is determined to pursue a course of action with regard to Iraq that will both ensure our own nation's security and promote international stability and I support his efforts. At the same time, I want to make it clear that I respect those who have sincere opposing views on the question before us. The freedom to disagree is one among many freedoms that we are vigorously trying to preserve and I would never want that to change. Few in Iraq who disagree with Saddam Hussein can share their opinions openly. The resolution we are considering makes it clear that America prefers to find solutions together with the United Nations and other international leaders. It also provides authority for the President to use force if diplomatic or other peaceful means are not effective. It preserves America's right to act on its own as we must in self-defense of our nation's interests. Mr. Speaker, the first major vote I took as a Member of Congress in 1991 was to support the international coalition's effort to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi aggressors. No one wanted war then, but it was necessary. No one wants war now. We don't seek it. It is my fervent hope that war with Iraq may yet be avoided. And it may. But our shared and firm commitment to the security of our nation should not be questioned by Saddam Hussein or the world community.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I rise reluctantly today in opposition to this resolution and I would like to explain why. I support Congress taking the necessary legislative steps, since Congress has not yet passed an appropriation bill for many of the subcommittees of jurisdiction, so that we can ensure the continuous operation of the government; but I believe there is a better way to accomplish this; and, therefore, I cannot support this resolution. It is on one principled basis, and that is that we need to control spending. The resolution provides a funding formula that I believe is flawed. The formula assumes that all one-time emergency spending passed by the Congress in response to the events of September 11 continues permanently. There is probably no better example of the problem and an illustration of this problem than the Pentagon. Under this flawed formula, funding for rebuilding the Pentagon would continue every year in perpetuity, even though the Pentagon has been rebuilt. Last week, when the House considered its first continuing resolution, I raised this very issue in a colloquy with the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I was given some assurances by the chairman that this issue could and would be addressed in future continuing resolutions; and unfortunately, this issue has not been addressed in the resolution before the House today. It is only fair to point out that there appears to be great consensus in the Congress and in the administration that the true one-time expenses for the responses to September 11 should be just that: one- time expenses. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has identified $16 billion of these one-time expenses. While it is said that $16 billion in one-time expenditures will not be funded again through administrative action, Congress also needs to act. It is our responsibility under the Constitution. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. I hope that in future bills that they can recognize this better way, and I reluctantly oppose this continuing resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Will the very distinguished gentleman work with me on the next continuing resolution that we understand will be necessary to ensure that one-time, nonrecurring emergency designated expenditures are not included in the base used to calculate the current rate of operations?

Mr. NUSSLE. This short-term CR would, if it were to last for an entire year, provide, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $744.3 billion in budget authority which in fact would not exceed the appropriate level in the budget resolution because defense is assumed to continue at last year's level. However, if it were annualized and the defense and military construction bills were enacted at even the House-passed levels, it would exceed the budget level by $8.2 billion. Of course, that assumes that these emergencies would continue. Will the gentleman assure the House and work with me in assuring the House that any further future continuing resolutions will come in under, on an annualized basis, the $749 billion in new budget authority assuming the enactment of the defense and MILCON bills at the levels requested by the President?

Mr. NUSSLE. I know the gentleman will most likely have the last word on this, so I will make my comments brief; but I have a slightly different take on who might be responsible here. The rules of the House may not permit me to be quite as specific as I might like, but there are two bodies that have to have a budget, have to complete a process in order to be successful. This body passed a budget. The gentleman may not agree with it. It may be difficult. These are difficult times. But at least the House of Representatives has completed its work on a budget and did so back before the deadline of April 15. If there was a better budget, a better proposal, a better outline and a better plan, we have yet to see it. It has yet to materialize in either the gentleman's caucus or the other body, as it is referred to. That may happen, but until then I would at least suggest that there may be more responsibility to go around than where he pointed the responsibility in his comments here just a moment ago. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. NUSSLE. If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman on his work to do just that, and I thank the hard work of the Committee on Appropriations in trying to accomplish that goal and will stand by the gentleman to work with him to accomplish that goal.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object so that I may enter into a colloquy with the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution that we have before us that the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules is bringing up under this unanimous- consent request is based on what might be referred to as ``a rate not to exceed the current rate'' for fiscal year 2002. Is it the gentleman's understanding that this would effectively carry forward appropriations from last year's supplementals that were designated as emergencies?

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a speech on the floor today that I am the least effective and that the budget is a joke. That was by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Now we hear from the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) that I am the all-powerful chairman of the Committee on the Budget that can, with the wave of my hand, both create surpluses and deficits. I would submit to both gentlemen that they probably not only need to check the Constitution and the rules of the House, but check the record. Mr. Speaker, it was Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden. There is a name out of history that maybe we forget from time to time who had at least a little bit to do with what has happened this last year; a little bit to do with the challenges in our economy; a little bit to do with the emergency that we have before us; a little bit to do with the war against terrorism. It seems to escape Members' memory banks; but the one thing that should not escape Members' memory banks is that we should not have a Tax Code in America that taxes Americans constantly and consistently when they are not looking. We need to make permanent the death tax repeal.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments on my sincerity and I will reserve making the same claim back. We repeal the death tax, no ifs, no ands, and no buts. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) cannot even get a majority on his own side to agree with his amendment and his motion to recommit, as we saw in the last time it was presented on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. NUSSLE. Because of the magic word the gentleman has put into their legislation, and that is ``if.'' We have no ifs. We want permanent death tax repeal. They have permanent death tax. And only if, then we get some kind of exclusion. We want permanent death tax repeal.