Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a member of the committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a new member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), my friend and colleague.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), I am going to oppose his budget, but I want to thank the gentleman for the way he has conducted the debate today and for the honorable partnership that we have formed in the Committee on the Budget to bring this vehicle to the floor today. We have some shared goals, even though we do not always share the ideas on how to achieve those goals. I want to applaud the gentleman publicly. I also want to applaud the staff on both sides who have worked so hard to bring both the gentleman's substitute and our base bill to the floor.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of opening the debate. Mr. Chairman, good morning. We are in the midst of continuing the debate on the budget for fiscal year 2002, and let me review what our plan has in store. We wrote a budget that has six principles that we think are pretty important as we stand on this very important threshold of the 21st century. In our budget, we have maximum debt elimination, a historic $2.3 trillion of paying down the public debt by 2011 during this 10-year period. Tax relief for every American taxpayer: $1,600 on average income tax break for the average family of four. Improved education for our children: $44.5 billion commitment in fiscal year 2002 alone, an 11.5 percent increase for our kids. But we also recognize that it is not just the money, it is also reform of education. A stronger national defense is our fourth principle: $14 billion increase, not only in 2001, but a $5.7 billion increase for pay, housing, and health care in 2002. Health care reform that modernizes Medicare, provides for a prescription-drug benefit. It modernizes our Medicare benefit, because it is not just about the current Medicare and the current trust fund, it is about extending the life of the trust fund, extending the solvency through modernization. It is not a zero-sum game as some of my friends on the other side would have it. Finally, saving Social Security. Third year in a row, the Republicans are setting aside all of the Social Security trust fund for exactly what we pay the FICA taxes for, for Social Security, for the retirement of our seniors. It is totally protected in this budget. We have a good plan. These are the six principles that make up the plan. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, to talk about improved education for our children.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. We will work together to enforce the budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, today we present a budget that we have been working on for more than just a few days. We have been working on this budget for almost 20 years, a 20-year attempt to slow the rate of growth of government, provide tax relief for Americans, pay off the debt held by the public, and recognize once and for all that the important decisions happen around kitchen tables, not around committee tables. Mr. Chairman, the most important debate today will not occur on this floor. The most important debate of today is going to happen tonight sometime after the kids are tucked into bed and mom and dad are sitting around the kitchen table, and they are trying to figure out how to pay for college, and they are trying to decide whether to buy Nike shoes or Keds, or they are trying to decide how to pay that Visa bill that just went over their limit one more time, or they are trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage, how to pay the heating bill, how to pay for the extra energy costs. Mr. Chairman, we sometimes think that the trillion dollars and trillion dollars of debate that we have here is the most important. But sometimes it is the $10, the $20, the $100 that is debated around our kitchen tables that is the most important. That is why we have presented the budget that meets the goals that we have worked so long to achieve. We had a priority of paying down the maximum amount of publicly held debt. We accomplish that, and there is still money left over. We set aside in a bipartisan way, I would say to my friends on both sides, all of the Social Security trust fund, a big victory for the American people and for seniors today and seniors tomorrow; and there is still money left over. We set aside all of the trust fund for Medicare. We provide for a prescription-drug benefit. We want to modernize Medicare in this budget, and there is still money left over. We provide for the important priorities of defense, agriculture, education, environment, so many issues that we have come here to debate in the halls of Congress; and there is still money left over. The question is, Who does that money belong to? It belongs to the people who debate around their kitchen table tonight. Let us give them that refund that the President asked. Let us provide for them in this budget. Let us pass the budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the very distinguished majority leader.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the very distinguished Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Come here and show me the cut.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Show me where it shows Medicare or a Social Security cut in here. Show me a Medicare cut in here. Come over here and show me. It is not in our budget. My colleagues know it is not. Let us not use war of words like that. Show me the cut. We have a difference of opinion on how to get there, but do not tell me.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to come over here and show me the cut.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H. Con. Res. 83, pursuant to House Resolution 100, the further amendment that I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole; and that the amendment I have placed at the desk be considered as read for the purpose of this request.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a very distinguished member of not only the Committee on the Budget, but also the Committee on Ways and Means, who will talk about tax relief for every taxpayer.

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my friend from South Carolina for the debate tonight; the spirit of the debate. I think it was a good one. I think we talked about a number of issues that we needed to address. Again, I would just reiterate the six goals and a little bit of the arguments about them. Number one is maximum debt eliminations. My good friends and colleagues on the other side say, ``Pay more of the national debt.'' I think it is pretty clear from tonight that we can only pay so much. Chairman Greenspan says that, the Treasury Department says that, and just about every economist has come forward and said, at some point in time 30-year notes do not come due. How do we go out and collect them? We cannot without paying a premium. We can only pay a certain amount of the debt down. I think that is clear. We have the maximum amount of debt that is responsible to pay down. Number two is tax relief. We have tax relief for every taxpayer. My friends on the other side say, but, really, if we add this in and we add that in, and then we add this over here and put it all together, and then we multiply by seven, their tax cut is really bigger. Well, but it is not. Read the bill. The bill says $1.6 trillion of tax relief. That is what reconciliation says. I understand the folks back home sitting around the kitchen counter do not understand reconciliation, but we do. Let us not kid each other. We know the $1.6 is the maximum amount of tax relief we can have under this bill. Next is education for all of our children. What they say is, we are going to spend more. We can spend more. We can invest more. We will put more tax dollars toward education than the Republicans can. I am sure they can, and they have. And we have tried over the last few years to keep up, and so we have all put more money into education. I grant my colleagues that. The point is nothing has improved. Our kids are not reading any better. Schools have not gotten better. Our programs have not been reformed. So before we throw one more dollar at all of this, can we not at least talk about some reform? All right, fine, there is some advanced funding in there. The point is that from last year to this year, it will be an 11.5 percent increase. That is a pretty good increase, but with that has got to come needed reform. Next is defense. A colleague came forward and said they have more money for defense. They are going to put all sorts of money in. What are they going to spend it on? They say, do not spend it on an aircraft carrier. What do we put it in? How are we going to know what to invest in for defense until we do the top-to-bottom review? And I know my colleagues are cynical about that and are saying that they do not know if they can get it done. Quite frankly, I do not know if they can get it done either. But the point is somebody has to try, because just having a bidding war toward defense, eventually all we will be doing is shooting pennies at each other, and that will not give us a stronger defense. Health care reform. My colleagues talk about solvency in Medicare, but they make it a zero sum game. They say if we take a dollar out to reform Medicare, which is what we all voted on when we put the lockbox for Medicare away, we said it could be used for reform, it could be used for modernization, that is what we all voted for, except for a few, in H.R. 2, the Medicare Lockbox, the difference though is that we say it is not a zero sum game. If we take money out of the trust fund for Medicare modernization, that does not necessarily mean the solvency is diminished. It means that with that reform it can be extended into the future. And that is what we all want. Regardless of the scare tactics that, granted, only a few used tonight, it still, I think, is a shame. Finally, on Social Security, let me say we are not privatizing Social Security. I defy my colleagues to find the word ``privatized'' in this bill. Find it, then we will talk about it. It is not in there. We do not privatize Social Security in this. What we are saying is we are setting aside all of the Social Security Trust Fund, just as we have in a bipartisan way finally been able to accomplish over the last three budgets. I think that is something we ought to celebrate and not demagogue. Finally, let me just say that we do recognize that there are some concerns about forecasting into the future, and that is why we put a cushion into this budget. After we set aside all the trust funds, we set aside one additional trust fund, one additional reserve, of $517 billion for that rainy day, for that cushion. We believe this is a responsible balanced budget, and we urge its adoption.