Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to answer that question. The gentleman does not give us permanent death tax repeal. We want permanent death tax repeal.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, all of bills that the gentleman just mentioned, the House has passed. It is, again, the Senate that fails to act. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the House has done its work on so many issues this session, including passing a budget. In fact, we have passed our budget twice in the House of Representatives, standing shoulder to shoulder with the President at this very important time in America's history. We have done our work. Among our accomplishments, the House has passed the Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 2002, H.R. 2143, by a very healthy, bipartisan margin back in June. The Senate has not yet taken action on this legislation. A temporary repeal of the death tax makes absolutely no sense. It does not make any sense, and it is not fair. Unless this very subtle quirk in the law is not repealed, thousands of Americans will lose tax relief that they deserve and that they expect. Let us call this what it really is. If we do not permanently bury the death tax, small business owners and family farmers will face a massive tax increase in 2011. The 2001 tax relief law phases out the death tax entirely by 2010; but without action to ensure permanency, it reappears in its full fury on January 1, 2011. This creates a ridiculous situation where one minute, one moment, one tick of the clock means the difference between no death tax and a full hit, depending on when someone passes away. Mr. Speaker, the death tax is fundamentally unjust because it results in double taxation. Our Nation's laws prevent double jeopardy in court; we should also wipe out double taxation in the law. Iowa's family farmers and small business owners pay taxes throughout their lifetimes. After they pass away, the Federal Government taxes the value of their property yet again. More than 1,500 families in Iowa and thousands across this Nation filed death tax returns last year alone. The IRS imposes rates of up to 60 percent on the value of a family farm or business when the owner passes away. To pay these very enormous tax bills, many people, many kids, are asked to visit the IRS and the undertaker on the very same day, forced to sell their farms or businesses in order to pay for those taxes. These are family businesses and family farms that in some instances have been in their family for generations. Mr. Speaker, sound planning cannot be made without stability in our Tax Code. The President recently spoke about this need for permanent tax relief in Iowa this week. He is ready to sign a bill. The current uncertainty surrounding the death tax makes it extremely difficult for owners of Iowa's family farms and businesses and America's family farms and businesses to make wise decisions. The legal and administrative costs of compliance inhibits the economic growth and expansion that our economy so sorely needs at this time. The House has done its work. It has passed permanent death tax repeal. The Senate has failed to act. We need action, and America needs action. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 527, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 524) expressing the sense of the House that Congress should complete action on the Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 2002.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds, and say what really needs to be exposed is the tax-and-spend attitude of the gentleman who just spoke. Taxes and spending, taxes and spending. Raise taxes, increase spending. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci). (Mr. GRUCCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 524 and H. Res. 525, the resolutions just agreed to.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to close our side of the debate on this important resolution, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). There is no one in our caucus who during his career has held the banner of tax reform and tax reduction any higher than our very distinguished majority leader.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and probably one of our most important leaders with regard to the repeal of the death tax.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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 September 6, 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 of 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, education is the foundation Iowans need to compete in an ever-changing complicated world. As Iowans have returned to classrooms for the new school year, we should act to make our commitment to education access clear. Last year, the Congress approved and the President signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. This important new law contained significant tax relief to improve the affordability of education from kindergarten through college. Unfortunately, due to arcane rules in the Senate, these education provisions will expire after December 31, 2010. Failing to act would mean that Americans would lose $5.5 billion in tax relief on New Year's Day, 2011. Knowing the importance of providing affordable education for Iowa's students of all ages, I introduced the Education Affordability Act, H.R. 5189, in July of this year. My legislation would repeal the sunset provisions and make permanent provisions eliminating the 60-month limit on the deductibility of student loan interest payments, increasing income limits for student loan interest deduction, and providing tax- free employer-provided education assistance. I am pleased that the legislation we are considering today incorporates the provisions of my bill. In addition to the provisions of my legislation, H.R. 5203 would also make permanent the increase in the annual contribution limit to an Education Savings Account (ESA); expansion of ESA benefits to qualified expenses at public, private and religious schools; tax-free withdrawals from 529 plans for qualified higher education expenses; and pre-paid tuition programs at private institutions of higher education. By putting more money into the hands of taxpayers so they can make their own decisions about education, I believe this legislation helps Iowans provide their families with the best possible futures.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, Section 221 of H. Con. Res. 83, and Section 231 of H. Con. Res. 353, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates established by the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget. The conference report on H.R. 4775, which was signed by the President on August 2 to become P.L. 107-206, contains emergency-designated appropriations. The fiscal year 2002 allocations to the Appropriations Committee were previously increased by $29,427,000,000 in new budget authority and $8,466,000,000 in outlays to reflect the amounts in the House-passed bill. I am adjusting the budgetary aggregates and the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations for the difference between the House-passed and enacted measures. This adjustment equals -$4,713,000,000 in new budget authority and -$1,645,000,000 in outlays. Accordingly, the 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2002 to the House Committee on Appropriations becomes $731,414,000,000 in new budget authority and $734,775,000,000 in outlays. The budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2002 become $1,704,586,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,651,428,000,000 in outlays. Outlays flowing from fiscal year 2002 emergency appropriations increase the 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2003 outlays. Under the procedures set forth in section 314 of the Budget Act, adjustments may be made for emergency-designated budget authority through fiscal year 2002, and for the outlays flowing from such budget authority in all fiscal years. The fiscal year 2003 outlay allocation to the Appropriation Committee was previously increased by $10,715,000,000 to reflect the House-passed bill. In order to account for the changes contained in the enacted measure, I am adjusting the outlay allocation by -$2,322,000,000. Accordingly, the 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2003 to the House Committee on Appropriations becomes $748,096,000,000 in new budget authority and $783,268,000,000 in outlays. The budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2003 become $1,784,073,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,765,225,000,000 in outlays.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished majority leader for his fine work on this piece of legislation and congratulate him on it. We have a good bill here, my colleagues; and we are about to just blow a hole so wide in the budget we have not seen nothing. In fact, we asked CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, to score this amendment because we wanted to at least be able to nail down a ballpark figure of what this would cost. And even CBO, who has been known from time to time to guess and predict, and sometimes guess incorrectly even, will not even hazard a guess of what this bill costs. In fact, what they tell us in the letter is that they know it is going to cost something, but they have no idea how much. And why is that? Because none of us can predict the future. But we can predict one thing, and that is that Congress will respond. To just fully indemnify and throw in this blanket blank check into this bill, without recognizing the perspective and the understanding of where we have been this year, would be, I believe, irresponsible. Let us just review this year. Even before passing the supplemental, we increased homeland security funding this year, already almost by 45 percent in 2001 and 65 percent in 2002. Forty billion dollars, my colleagues, we, in a bipartisan way, spent in response in two supplementals for reconstruction and for the war; $8.4 billion in economic assistance to the aviation industry; almost $200 million in immediate assistance to victims of terrorism; and our 2003 budget included a $35 billion increase for defense to fully fund the President's request. Just this week, we passed an additional bill for $10 billion in addition to that $35 billion. Just yesterday, we sent to the President a second supplemental where we provided $28.9 billion in emergency funding, $13 billion of which went to defense and $11 billion went to the other agencies. In addition, we provided roughly $75 billion of economic stimulus to help recover from the shock. Indemnification? I do not know what my colleagues are worried about here. We will respond. But to give a blank check and to put the taxpayers on the hook with absolutely no check from the House of Representatives, with no oversight, with no accountability, and with no understanding of what this will do to the budget, is the wrong thing to do to this very responsible bill. This bill fits within our budget. Do not pass this amendment or it busts every budget anyone has ever contemplated.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 5120, a bill providing appropriations for the Department of Treasury and related agencies and to express my continuing concern with the path the House is currently taking on appropriations. overall levels As reported, H.R. 5120 provides $18.5 billion in budget authority and $18.2 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2003. It also exceeds the President's request by $537 million. To put this increase in perspective, appropriations for the agencies covered by this bill have climbed by an average of 10.5 percent a year over the last three years. The bill provides another $31 million for fiscal year 2004 for free and reduced mail for the blind as well as mail for overseas voting. This is included in the list of permissible advance appropriations pursuant to the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2003 (H. Con. Res. 353). compliance with budget resolution It is only fair to point out that this bill, like that of the Interior bill we considered last week, is within the reporting Subcommittee' 302(b) allocation. Hence, no budget-related point of order lies against consideration of the bill. To the Appropriations Committee's credit, it was able to meet its 302(b) allocation without designating phony emergencies, which are effectively exempt from any budgetary constraints. Nor did it attempt to create the illusion of fiscal restraint by offsetting spending increases with rescissions in funds that would never have been spent. the bigger picture My concern is less with the bill than in the direction in which we are heading. Unless we exercise more restraint in the less controversial measures like this bill, we will be forced to find savings in the remaining appropriations bills or breach the limits that both the House and the President agreed to earlier this year. The real test will come when we consider appropriations for VA-HUD and Labor-HHS, which the Leadership has agreed to bring to the floor before any other appropriations measures are considered. For every dollar we increase spending in this bill above the President's request, we must find an equal amount of savings from such agencies as Veterans' Affairs, Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development. I sincerely hope that both the Appropriations Committee and the Congress as a whole is up to this task. other issues On a lighter note, for the second year in a row the bill includes a limitation that prohibits appropriations from being used to pay the salaries of any OMB staff who dare to compare the President's budget request with that of the 13 appropriations bills. It still seems curious to me that while the individual appropriations bills must be submitted to the President to become law, the President shouldn't be allowed to suggest how much should be spent on each bill. conclusion In conclusion, I reluctantly support this bill because it is within the limits that were established for it by the House-passed budget resolution. At the same time, it continues the pattern of allowing appropriations for select agencies to grow significantly beyond the levels requested by the President. This will force us to exercise greater restraint than would have otherwise been required for such agencies as Veteran's Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Services. If we prove unable to meet that challenge, I will be forced to examine other remedies to bring overall appropriations in line with the budget resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5121, a bill to provide promotions for the legislative branch. I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for their cooperation in making sure that this bill complies with the House-passed budget resolution for fiscal year 2003. It provides $2.7 billion in budget authority and $2.9 billion for outlays for fiscal year 2003. If this measure is enacted, spending will have increased on an average of 11.1 percent for each of the last 3 years. Consistent with longstanding practice under which each House establishes its own priorities, the bill does not include appropriations for the other Chamber, which will be incorporated into the bill during conference. I am pleased that the bill is within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and is fully consistent with the provisions of the 1974 Budget Act. It does not designate any emergencies that would increase the 302(b) allocation or rescind any previously enacted budget authority. Let me also mention the Moran amendment that will be on the floor to cut $590,000 from the Joint Committee on Taxation. As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, we rely on the estimates of this important committee. Particularly at this very difficult time for our country in estimating revenue, it would be unconscionable and irresponsible to cut the budget for the Joint Committee on Taxation. So I urge Members to support the committee mark, and, in closing, I again commend Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Taylor for crafting a bill that meets the needs of the House in a manner that is consistent with the budget resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico on a fine job of putting this appropriation bill together. As the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, I am pleased to report that this bill is consistent with the House concurrent resolution for the budget for fiscal year 2003, including the levels expressed in the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. The levels of conservation-related spending in the bill are also consistent with the statutory caps. So I will support this appropriations bill, but I would like to share with my colleagues one concern and a warning about the process. The bill designates $700 million for emergency wildland fire suppression for 2002. We are all concerned about the wildfires that have destroyed lives and property in Arizona, Colorado and elsewhere. However, if the money is urgently needed to meet a current unanticipated emergency, the fiscal year 2002 supplemental is the more appropriate vehicle to pursue this objective; and I would urge that approach by my colleagues in the House, the other body, and the administration. Overall, I would also like to mention some concerns I have with the direction of the process for appropriations. While this bill is within its 302(b) allocation, it is approximately $700 million more than comparable levels in the President's budget. In addition, the Agriculture, Treasury Postal appropriation bills that we are expected to see on the floor later this week are also $700 million more than the President's request and our resolution. At this rate, we are going to have to reduce spending for VA-HUD, Commerce, State, and Justice and other appropriation bills by several billion dollars to comply with the budget resolution. I hope that Members of the Committee on Budget and the Committee on Appropriations, as well as colleagues on both sides of the aisle, will work together to pass the remaining bills at the levels that are sustainable through the entire appropriations process. We just heard a report today by the Office of Management and Budget on the midsession review for the budget and for the deficit that we are currently operating under. Spending restraint is the only way to get out of the dire circumstance that we find ourselves in. I urge our colleagues to continue to be responsible as we work through this process, and I urge support for this appropriations bill.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to Section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, Section 221 of H. Con. Res. 83, and Section 231 of H. Con. Res. 353, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates established by the Concurrent Resolutions on the Budget for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. As reported to the House, H.R. 5093, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, includes emergency-designated appropriations for wildland firefighting. Those appropriations total $700,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2002. There are no outlays from those appropriations in fiscal year 2002. Outlays flowing from fiscal year 2002 emergency appropriations increase the 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2003 outlays. Under the procedures set forth in section 314 of the Budget Act, adjustments may be made for emergency-designated budget authority through fiscal year 2002 and for the outlays flowing from such budget authority in all fiscal years. Outlays from those appropriations total $400,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. After making the required adjustments, the 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2002 for the House Committee on Appropriations becomes $736,127,000,000 in new budget authority and $736,420,000,000 in outlays. The 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2003 for the House Committee on Appropriations becomes $748,096,000,000 in new budget authority and $785,590,000,000 in outlays. The budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2002 become $1,709,299,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,653,073,000,000 in outlays. The budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2003 become $1,784,073,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,767,547,000,000 in outlays.