Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, picture this. Pull into a 7-Eleven late at night. The gentleman tops the gas tank off at the pump. It comes to $18 because of the last 8 years' worth of energy policy that we have had. The gentleman walks into the clerk at the 7-Eleven and hands the clerk $20 for the $18 charge out on the pump. What happens next? What happens next? Does the clerk take the money and stick it all in the cash drawer and say it is close enough? Does the clerk take the change that is owed and stick it in the little charity box that might be in front of the cash register, as many of the convenience stores have, maybe it is for Muscular Dystrophy, maybe it is for Special Olympics? No. That is not what happens. Does the clerk look at the person next in line and say, they deserve the money more than you do, so let us give it to somebody else? No, they do not do that. Do they take the extra money, and as the gentleman before me said, we have some investments that we need and so we are going to invest that overcharge in something right here at our local 7-Eleven; thank you very much. No, that is not what they do. What do they do? They give, my colleagues, their change back. That is what our Federal Government needs to do. We have been overtaxing America for some time now. Americans have been paying the tab. We have bills that we have been able to pay. We have investments that we have met. We have spending that we have taken care of. We have debt that we are paying down. We have set aside Social Security, and there is change left over. What the Rangel substitute says is we will give part of the gentleman's change back, but we will keep the rest, because we have extra spending that we need or we have extra investments, as the Rangel substitute seems to presuppose. Mr. Speaker, that is not what we say in our Republican budget, and that is not what we say in this reconciliation bill. We say, just like in Iowa, the clerk would run into the parking lot to give the change. American taxpayers deserve their change back. Vote for the underlying bill and against the Rangel substitute.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I rise to thank the Members who supported the conference report first of all, but most especially I would like to thank the staff of the Committee on the Budget, both majority and minority, Rich Meade and Jim Bates from the majority side, Tom Kahn from the minority side, and others who worked so hard to get us to this point. It is a huge task, a huge undertaking to put all of this together in the time that is allotted. Both sides deserve a lot of credit for the work that they do.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. I would first like to commend the gentleman for his hard work on this issue. This is a tough issue, and this has been a tough issue for the gentleman and a number of other Members; and I appreciate his leadership in ensuring that this increase was included in the conference report. As the gentleman stated, the resolution provides specific language highlighting the recognition by Congress that up to an additional $1 billion is necessary next year, and I look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that this increase is included in any final appropriations bill that moves this year.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and I also thank the gentleman for his leadership, for having to come out here on the floor a number of times over the last few days in order to manage us through this final budget vote. I appreciate his patience and the patience of the Committee on Rules and also his leadership. I also appreciate the chance to speak on this. I would like to respond briefly to my friend and someone I consider a partner on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Bipartisanship is his concern and it is my concern. However, we may differ slightly on what bipartisanship means. If bipartisanship means we have to agree on everything all of the time, that is a goal we probably cannot achieve. This is a country of 260 million-plus people. We are from rural areas, urban areas. We represent districts that have people that farm, that work in factories, that have kids, that are seniors; some who are highly educated, some that maybe do not have as much education. We have many minorities: black, white, Hispanic. What a diverse Nation. How could we possibly all of the time agree on every single thing? That is not what the founders wanted us to do. They wanted us to come into this Chamber and have a debate. They wanted us to come into this Chamber and send their representatives here to debate the grand issues of the day, and we have a number of them; and we are not going to agree on every single one. But what we try and do is we offer both sides, if in fact there are sides, the opportunity to present their plans. We did that. And what ``we'' means now, of course, is that the Republicans control the House. We, at least under somebody's definition, control the Senate, the other body, excuse me, and we control the White House. And so we have an opportunity to present our vision for the country. The loyal opposition has the opportunity to present their plan; and we did so this year, respectfully, in a bipartisan way. But we did not come to agreement. And so at some point in time we have to have a debate, and we have to have a vote on which vision to accept. Now, because we do not agree does not mean that we are being partisan. In fact, the other side has a number of good ideas within their plan, ideas that they have worked on for many years. But I must say that they are not shared even by the majority of the Democrat caucus. Let me just give an example of what we do not agree on with the last plan that was presented by President Clinton. In his last year, just as an example, during these next 10 years, compared to our big major tax decrease that everybody is out here lambasting today, and that is fine, that is where the other side is coming from, my colleagues do not believe we ought to cut taxes, but let us compare that to the other plan. President Clinton's last budget had $237 billion of tax increases. Now, I am sorry we do not agree. I am not going to be partisan about that. The opposition party can fairly present their side of it. Now they have moved to the other side of the coin. They are saying now we ought to have tax decreases, not as much as the Republicans want; but at least they have moved in that direction, from tax increases to tax decreases. But just because we still do not agree does not mean that it has to be partisan. We can have a fair debate. It does not have to be personal. I would say by and large it has not been personal; that we have not heard some of the rancorous debate where people have come out here accusing people of throwing children in the street that we heard maybe 3, 4 years ago. I would hope that continues. But it does not mean that we are not being bipartisan because we do not agree. It is fair in this country to present plans and to allow for the debate. So let me just briefly go through what it is that we are presenting here today as a result of this rule. I believe that we have a plan that meets the priorities of this country. Let me just run through a few of them. This is the fifth balanced budget in a row. This is something we believe very strongly in, that our budgets should be balanced, that they should be responsible. And there is still money left over after we balance that budget. We have $2.4 trillion of debt reduction over the next 10 years, the largest decrease of our national indebtedness that we have had in our country's history over this same period. And we still have resources left over. We are saving the entire Social Security Trust Fund. Only since 1999 has that been a bipartisan agreement here in this House. There is still money left over. The entire Medicare surplus is set aside for modernization and a prescription drug benefit, and there is still tax surpluses left over. We are budgeting for our priorities at 4 percent, and there is still money left over to provide $1.35 trillion worth of tax relief for the American people. There is still money left over. There are still resources left over after we have balanced the budget, provided the most debt relief in history, set aside Social Security, set aside Medicare for modernization, provided for America's priorities at a 4 percent growth in spending, and provided for tax relief. And, believe it or not, there is still resources left over to provide for contingencies in the future. Now, my colleagues may not agree with that budget. I invite them to vote against it if they do not. But just because they are voting against it, I will not call them partisan. I will suggest that they have a different view of America and our future. That is not partisan; that is what it means for them to be in the opposition.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 136, I call up the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. Mr. Speaker, the legacy of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) when he was the majority leader is as follows: tax increases, underfunding special education, absolutely no energy policy for this country, raids on the Social Security Trust Fund, and no prescription drug policy. So to come to the floor here today and to call this a fraud, when for years as the majority leader he did nothing to promote the policies he now comes to the floor and lambastes, is an atrocity. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, before I respond, let me thank the gentleman for his leadership. There is no one in this House that stands ahead of the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs when it comes to advocating for our Nation's veterans. In response to the chairman's questions, yes, the conference report reflects the House levels for mandatory spending, and it also includes the House proposals for increases above current law levels.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, again, the answer is correct. The increase was not explicitly reflected in the budget function for veterans because the discretionary increases in the conference report were distributed across all budget functions. As the distinguished chairman knows, it is the Committee on Appropriations that makes the final determination of exactly how those resources are distributed, and the gentleman and I will be visiting the Committee on Appropriations to make sure that they hold to the highest possible level for our veterans.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. Mr. Speaker, if it was spending that we needed to solve education in this country, the District of Columbia schools would be the best in the Nation. This is not a county sale barn, where we are bidding on a prize heifer. Spending more money on education is not the only thing we need to do. I stipulate the fact that you will spend everything you want here. That does not mean it is a responsible budget. We got to have reform. That is what is in this budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity to vote for either excuses or opportunities. That is what we are faced with here today. First the excuses: ``we cannot,'' ``we should not,'' ``it will not work.'' Those are the excuses. The excuses have been going on for years why we cannot return the tax surplus to the American people. First is do not have a tax cut until we balance the budget. We balanced the budget. Then it was do not cut taxes until we have saved Social Security. We have saved all of Social Security. Then it was do not cut taxes until the Medicare trust fund is set aside. We set aside the Medicare trust fund. There was still money left over, but they said do not do it until you significantly increase spending. We increased spending for important priorities. They say do not cut taxes because it is the wrong time. Then it was the wrong way. Then it was the wrong process. Then they said it was too big. Today there has even been Members who have come to the floor and have suggested that the tax cut will not work because it is too small. Now, look, we have all heard the story about the three bears and the excuses. The excuses stop today with a budget that provides for opportunities: the fifth balanced budget in a row, maximum debt relief of $2.4 trillion, saves Social Security, provides for a Medicare surplus for modernization, budgets for Americans priorities at 4 percent for education, 11.5 percent increase. Agriculture is increased. Defense is increased. Veterans priorities are maintained. The National Institutes of Health, the largest increase in history. There is still money left over. It is at that time that we have to recognize who does this money belong to. It is the American people. The budget that they negotiate around their kitchen table is more important than the Federal budget. So let us stop making excuses about the Federal budget. Let us recognize where those tax dollars come from. Let us take the opportunity to provide tax relief for the American people. Vote for a budget of opportunities. Vote for the conference report.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of our Committee on Appropriations thinks it is a real number. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report just agreed to.