Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, only to let the gentleman from Washington know that we did take that automatic CR out of the bill. There will be an amendment later, and my colleagues can decide whether they want that as part of this bill.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend a number of Members on both sides of the aisle for their work on budget process reform. There are maybe a few Members of Congress and a few people watching who may think that this all of a sudden just came up in the last couple of weeks, but it did not. In fact, I remember talking to Members of Congress when I first arrived as a freshman Member who were concerned about that year's budget process, 1990, when, as we may recall, as the body may recall, Members of Congress and administration officials were being shuttled back and forth from Andrews Air Force Base in a very ``democratic process'' in order to try and arrive at the end year result of what the budget would look like. There were probably only a handful of people in this entire country divvying up the final $1.3 trillion worth of spending tax increases, at that point. There were just a few Members in a little barracks, I guess, right off of Andrews Air Force Base, and they were making the final decisions of what was then the budget process. At that point, as a freshman Member, and just about every year since, I made the commitment that this is something that I wanted to do. Well, there were many people that I worked with. I certainly could not and did not do this alone. I first would like to commend my partner in this, and that is the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). The two of us were given the task of sitting down and trying to take all of the good ideas from Members since the 1974 Act was passed and to try and put them together in a comprehensive bill that addressed many of the problems that we were facing at that time. So I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), so many people, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), that we stand on their shoulders as we work together. Why is this process broken, or how do we know it is broken? Well, one does not have to go back to my very first year as a freshman to 1990. Just go back to 1995, the government shutdown. Everybody certainly remembers that. In fact, that is the poster child for budget process reform. The same is true with 1998 when we did not even get a budget, did not even pass a budget that particular year. So we have a number of different dynamics that proved to us as Members that the process is broken. So one can pick any year one wants and see a number of opportunities for the budget process to break down. We also considered just about every alternative that was put before the Congress, both past and present. We considered every kind of lockbox one can imagine. We considered joint resolutions. We considered concurrent resolutions. We considered all sorts of things which people outside might glaze over in their eyes. They may not even be following. But as I explained to a group of young people that I spoke to back in my district when they were asking me what I was going to be working on this week, I told them budget process reform. Of course, they do not quite understand what that would mean. I said, well, it is the rules in which we govern our behavior in coming up with a budget. Those rules are not much different than when one dusts off that old Monopoly box that one pulls out from under one's bed, and one dusts it off because one has not played it in a while. So one is trying to remember the rules. One opens the box, and one looks on the back of the box, and there it says very clearly the non-outcome, in other words, it does not determine the outcome, but it says how one plays the games in a fair way so that the process can work its will, and that the players can achieve their end result on their own, based on those rules. That is what we tried to do here. We did not game it. We did not say there is a special rule for this or a special rule for that. We did not take advantage for the Committee on Ways and Means or the Committee on Appropriations or any of the authorizing committees. We said, what is the best way for us to get a common sense result? So what did we do? We looked back and we said, since 1994, when has the process worked? Do my colleagues know what? Mr. Chairman, we could only find one year where the budget process truly worked. Do my colleagues know what year that was? That was the year that we did not follow the budget process. It was 1997. Let me remind my colleagues what happened. Early in that year, Democrats and Republicans met with both the House, the Senate, the administration together, and they said, how can we make sure that the budget process works? They came up with what was called a memorandum of agreement. That memorandum of agreement set out the aggregate numbers by which the entire year worked. It said what taxes were going to be. It said what spending was going to be. It said debt reduction, how we were going to reduce the deficit. Together in a memorandum of understanding, the White House, together working with the Congress, they came up with what was the framework for probably one of the most successful years of budgeting since 1974. So it was that process that we used as a boilerplate for this particular bill. Now, since we wrote the bill and in the last few days when this bill has been coming to the floor, I have been having three typical conversations. One is, of course, Members who support the reform. They are very happy that we can prevent government shutdowns, that we can stop with the game playing and the political documents as part of a budget bill because it has to be real. If we make it a joint resolution, it means the president of either party cannot come to the Congress in February and submit a budget that is dead on arrival, leave for 9 months, and come back when there are negotiations at Andrews Air Force Base. It means that the Congress and the Committee on the Budget cannot put a political document out on to the table and leave and check out until October when the budget should have been done and we are already on the government shutdown, and they come back in to try to fix everything. It means that the process has to be real. It should not be political. It should not be a game. We are talking about $1.8 trillion of one's hard-earned money that is being spent, that is being taxed, that is being used for the betterment of our country. We should have a process that works. The second kind of conversation is from Members who I have to honestly suggest to my colleagues find a certain amount of advantage from our current chaos. I would suggest to my colleagues those are probably Members who find themselves in that last room on that last day putting the finishing touches on a 15,000-page bill. That is not me. That is not the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). That is probably very few of us in this room right here today. So are my constituents from Iowa being represented in that process? I would suggest to my colleagues no. Are my friends who are here today listening to the debate? Are their constituents being served by that process where one has no input, where the House is not working its will? I would suggest to my colleagues that it is not. It does work for those Members who observe a certain advantage of being in that room and taking advantage of that chaos. The final group of people are those who are concerned about bringing the White House into the process. Mr. Chairman, should not the White House be in our budget process? I mean, I realize that my colleagues are all walking around here today suggesting that maybe we can do it all by ourselves, but did that not, in some respect, contribute to the government shutdown? Did that not, in some respect, contribute to the chaos and the confusion of years past when, all of a sudden, at the end of the year, be they a Republican majority or a Democratic majority, because the process was not real, at the last minute, in order to avert a government shutdown, had to rush into a room and try and finally put a finishing touch on that bill? By excluding the President from this particular provision, what we end up doing is not make it real, not make it realistic. More so, we send a false sense of security to our constituents suggesting that, as long as we continue to have votes on all these bills, things must be proceeding successfully, when we all know with a wink and a nod that they are, in fact, not. Now, there are some committees that have some specific concerns that have been coming up to me as well. One are the authorizing committees. For those of my colleagues listening, those are the committees, such as the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Commerce, committees such as that. They are in charge of authorizing the many departments, laws, and agencies of our government. They are concerned that if, in fact, we create a budget law at the beginning of the year, that, in fact, the Committee on Budget could decide to do all of the work for those other committees. I would suggest to my colleagues, not only is that protected in this legislation, but it is protected by the Speaker, and it is protected by the rules of our House. We do not have the ability to circumvent any jurisdiction at all in this bill. Do not buy the arguments that suggest otherwise. The Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations have some concerns with this bill. Why? Well, number one, I say very respectfully, and if I was a Cardinal, as they call them, one of the chairmen of the subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations, I might kind of like this, too. But I am, of course, invited as one of the Cardinals into that final room to write the bill, and, of course, I kind of like that opportunity. So they oppose the bill because the current amount of chaos and confusion that gets us to that end result advantages that committee. There are other committees, such as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that has suggested that mischief might be created by that as well. But, again, I would suggest to my colleagues that all they are trying to do is to determine the outcome before the House gets to work its will. I would just like to suggest to my colleagues, in closing, my part of this that we have an opportunity today to fix a process that is broken. Oftentimes, we come to the floor, and we do not have a broken process. But even the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, has worked on this, his staff. While they have not been in agreement, I respected his opinion on this and his input on this. Even though we may want to agree on this, I would suggest to him that we have an opportunity today to fix the process that he knows is broken. In fact, the gentleman from South Carolina admitted that during the debate on the rule. This may not be exactly the best way in everybody's estimation, but it is a start, and we should not kill this bill on the floor today. There is a reason why we have not reformed the process since 1974. The reason is, quite honestly, because people see some advantage in there to them, personal, jurisdictional advantage. What we have come up with is a non-outcome determining solution to this process. It has been an arduous task, to say the least, but we feel we have brokered a compromise that works well and allows the House today, as we debate this bill to work its will and to make a determination that does, in fact, fix this final process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed to hear the debate today, so much discussion about personal and individual power, committee jurisdiction, prerogative, the need to put discipline into a system. Mr. Chairman, this is not about us, this is about America; We, the people. People come from around the world to see how 260 million people govern a Nation. They do not come here to see how much power the chairman of the Committee on Resources has, they come here to see how it works. What they cannot believe and what I cannot believe, and what my constituents in Iowa cannot believe, is that if in fact we do come to impasse, that they should be so affected by a government shutdown that everything has to stop because a couple of chairmen, a couple of powerful chairmen, rightfully have an argument, rightfully have a disagreement, and cannot come to an agreement. Therefore, everything has to suffer, everything has to shut down. The beauty of America is that we have been able to for more than 200 years talk about the power of the people of this country, not individual power of Members of Congress. Let us pass this amendment.

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

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to start by giving my appreciation to my good friend from Florida for his good work on the Committee on Rules, and for the Committee on Rules as a whole, for their patience, for their understanding, for the thoroughness in which they have conducted this budget process, reform process. That is really what we are talking about today, is process. As much as there are a few Members in our body that are rushing to the floor now at the last minute wanting to inject into this a certain level of political substance, let me caution Members that this has been a bipartisan process which has not gone to the level of political substance or political theater. I would suggest that while there are many viewpoints on exactly how the budget process should be conducted, exactly how our budget should be arrived at, we have, in this process with the Committee on Rules, with the Committee on the Budget, with the Committee on Appropriations, stayed completely away from substantive outcome determinant procedures. This is outcome neutral in its process. I had to describe this to a group of kids back home in Iowa, and they wanted to find out what I was going to be working on this week. And budget process reform, quite honestly, is pretty much a yawn, I would have to suggest. Even the gentleman from Massachusetts would probably agree with me on that. But I told them, I said, it is a lot like when we play the game Monopoly. We dust off the board game, Monopoly, and we open it up and look on the back of the box and it never tells us who is going to win the game. It never says one player gets to pass go and collect $200 but another does not; one specific player gets to be the shoe today and another gets to be the thimble. Nowhere in the game do we see that. And that is what we have tried to preserve here too. The gentleman from Massachusetts is correct when he stated that we do not protect specifically prescription drugs or Social Security or student loans, nor do we protect the United States Capitol building. According to our budget process reform, there is nothing in there that prevents us from tearing it down and moving it to maybe even Des Moines, Iowa. In fact, we could get rid of the Energy Department, according to this. There is no protection in there for Energy, no protection for the Commerce Department, no protection in there for any of the programs, the bureaucracies, the agencies, the departments, the buildings, and, even for that matter, the people within them. We could eliminate all sorts of budgets within this. There are no special protections. There is a reason for that. We do not want to determine the outcome. We want Congress to work its will. But we also believe it needs to be real. The gentleman from Massachusetts said this is nothing but a political document. That is what is wrong. That is what is wrong. From the time this bill was first introduced, back in 1974, when the Committee on the Budget was first established, when the budget process was first established, it was established because the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Ways and Means, the Congress as a whole could not come together and understand what the final outcome was going to look like. It established a reconciliation process, so that before anything began, everyone had to sit down and look and see what it was going to look like, just like a normal home budget would look like. What are we going to spend, generally, how much money are we taking in, how much money do we think we should expend. The Committee on Appropriations should be allowed to put in the details. The Committee on Ways and Means should be allowed and have the power to put in the details. But someone had to come in and put an umbrella over the entire document, and that is the reason why the Committee on the Budget and the budget process was first instituted. So the question today is, is the process broken? Yes, the process is broken. We should not mess with a process if it is not broken. But go back and pick a year, any year my colleagues want to pick in the last decade, except for 1997, interestingly enough, and I will come back to that. Pick a year, any year, and every single year there was chaos, there were train wrecks, there were final negotiations at Andrews Air Force Base between the Congress and the President scrambling, with sometimes only three people in the room. And I see the smiles on the faces. Sometimes the Democrats were in the majority and it was the Republicans in control of the White House. Neither side can be happy with the current process that gets us to a train wreck. So we said what year worked? 1997 worked. Why did it work? Why did we finally get to a balanced budget for the first time in 40 years? Because the Congress and the President sat down early in the process and came up with a memorandum of agreement that decided what the big picture was going to look like; how much money were we taking in in taxes; how much generally we were going to expend in spending; what was the national debt going to look like; what was Social Security going to look like, and they put together a memorandum of agreement. The big picture. From that, we had success. We wrote this bill to encourage that success in the future, and that is why we should support this rule and this bill.

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 on H.R. 853, the legislation just considered.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the Charles City High School Music Department for its selection as a GRAMMY Signature School for the second time in as many years. I would like to congratulate the students of the Charles City High School band, choir and orchestra. They are one of only 100 schools to be recognized in the country this year, and one of the three from Iowa. With this achievement, they have demonstrated that they have the ability and the desire to be assets and role models in their community and the great state of Iowa. This award is given to schools that are dedicated to advancing music and arts-based education by the GRAMMY Foundation, a non-profit arm of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS). The recipients of this award are determined on the basis of a scoring system applied by an advisory committee made up of members of the musical industry. I also congratulate the directors of the three music departments at the school; the Director of Bands, Jim Jurgensen, the Director of Vocal Music, Larry Michehl, and the Director of Orchestras, Nancy Western as well as Principal Jon Nordaas and the entire faculty at Charles City High School. Without their guidance and support, and that of the entire community, this prestigious recognition would not have been possible. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to and congratulating the Charles City High School Music Department for the outstanding achievement of receiving the NARAS GRAMMY Signature School Award.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, while I think I understand what the tactic is on the other side. We have heard about train wrecks today. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip, came in and talked about how this is not going to work, how it does not mean the priority. We have heard about the Democrats rushing to the floor saying that, oh, at the end of the year, there is going to be a train wreck. Well, if there is a train wreck, Mr. Speaker, it is for one reason. It is because the Democrats are in an election year, and they are running for their lives. They are slapping on the camouflage, and they are sneaking up, they are crawling up that hill, going toward that railroad track, and they are planting the dynamite. They are planting the demolition chargers, and they are trying to blow it all up because they know one thing. If this train makes it to the station, they lose. That is unfortunate. Because in America, it does not have to be win- lose. It can be win-win. When we had our conversation with America, when we went to town meetings across the country, Americans in Iowa, Americans in Minnesota, in Connecticut, in Ohio, South Carolina, all across the Nation said that they wanted to have some goals in this budget put firmly in place. Protect 100 percent of Social Security. The gentleman form Michigan (Mr. Bonior) said it did not do that. What is he reading? What is he reading? Strengthen Medicare with prescription drugs. Forty billion dollars, the first time we have ever set up a Medicare lockbox to set aside $40 billion to do that. The previous speaker says it does not do that. What is he reading? Who is he listening to? Who is writing his speeches these days? At least read the document that my colleagues are going to be voting on today. It not only provides 100 percent set-aside for Social Security so that it is not touched, the first time we have been able to accomplish that, the first time in a row that we have been able to accomplish that; but, under Medicare, we not only set aside $40 billion, but we have a prescription drug benefit. Now, it is not the one they want. Of course, Democrats have a different philosophy of the way prescription drug benefits ought to be administered. They say, let the government take it over. Give it all to the Health Care Finance and Administration, let them write the plan. Of course Republicans have a little bit different idea. We say we do not trust the government to run this health care system very well. It has not done a good job. Let us look for some free market ways of doing it. So there is a difference of opinion. But do not say we do not have it when we have it. Then of course we retire the debt by 2013. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) said there is no debt retirement. Again, what is he reading? Three trillion dollars of debt retirement as a result of this bill, and we have to be proud of that, all of us, again, in a win-win situation. Strengthen support for education. There has been talk today about NIH cuts. There is a $1 billion increase for NIH the last 2 years alone, 13 percent the first, 14 percent the second. Increases in NIH funding, not cuts. So let us vote for this plan, but it does the things that America wants, and it is win-win.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. You asked a question.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that over the weekend the Democrats did a poll. They rush in here with a motion to instruct conferees on the budget resolution with a time stamp on here of 3:45, not too long ago. The ink is not even dry on this. They rushed in here with this motion to instruct conferees. What does it say? It says, know what? We are getting our brains beat in on this prescription drug benefit. The Republicans beat us when it came to the budget resolution; they are beating us when it comes to public relations on prescription drugs because they know that our original proposal did not have a thing. The President's proposal did not have a prescription drug benefit. The original proposal that the Democrats brought forth in the Committee on the Budget did not have a prescription drug benefit that started until the third year. In fact, it cut Medicare. Oh, no, we didn't cut Medicare on beneficiaries. We cut it on providers is what they will say. In my area, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) was saying, in rural areas those kind of cuts will be devastating. They may say in the third year that they have a prescription drug benefit; but when all the rural hospitals close, they do not have health care. Well, this is the situation: we put into our plan instructions that suggest that there is only one thing that the Committee on Ways and Means can do with this $40 billion. It can either reform Medicare and provide a prescription drug benefit or nothing else can happen to that money except it can be used to pay down the debt. That is it. What do the Democrats suggest? They came in with a technicality on the floor right at the end of the budget debate, and they said but we have a better motion to instruct. They say the Committee on Ways and Means has to use it. Guess what? If they do not, it does not go to debt reduction; it does not go to tax relief. Guess where it can go? To a risky spending scheme that the Democrats have put in place for the last 40 years that wasted social security, that brought us to the point in time where we had this massive debt in the first place, and now they want to start all over again. Mr. Speaker, this is the situation: this is not just a little drug benefit, as my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), suggested. This is the only drug benefit that is going to pass this particular year because we are not going to pass a drug benefit where the money, if not spent, can be used for other risky spending schemes. We are not going to use this money for anything else except for reform of Medicare and for prescription drugs, different than what the Democrats' plan does. So instead of voting for this motion to recommit that was drafted just a few hours ago, after it is obvious the Democrats took a poll this weekend, let us vote against this motion to instruct conferees, which would gut the Medicare reform proposal, which would gut the prescription drug proposal, and which would not recognize that in 5 days we have tax day and Americans all over the country have been paying their taxes. This thumbs their noses at the taxpayers of America.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Protect 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, strengthen Medicare with prescription drugs, retire the public debt by 2013, promote tax fairness, restore America's defense, and lets us strengthen and support education and science. Let us talk Medicare. Here come the me-too Democrats. That is not what they were saying a month ago. The me-too Democrats a month ago were rushing in and saying the President has a fantastic prescription drug benefit. Well, let us look at that. Let us see what the prescription drug benefit did. Well, the President in the first year cut Medicare. No money left for prescription drugs. Second year, $2 billion, but the President's plan did not start yet. The third year, a $100 million increase for Medicare according to the President's budget; no room for prescription drugs. What does the Republican plan do? Mr. Chairman, $40 billion set aside for Medicare, and what do the Democrats do? Last night, rush in with a substitute, saying oh, me too, me too, me too. I want to give a prescription drug benefit that is real, not the President's that is not real, that cuts Medicare; and let us look at some of those cuts. In order for the President to fund his Medicare benefit, it increases beneficiary costs, it cuts kidney dialysis, cutting prescription drug payments, cutting hospitals. Let me tell my colleagues something. Out in rural America, out in Iowa, you close my hospital, you do not have health care, let alone the President's fake prescription drug benefit that did not even go into effect until 2004. So do not come in here and ``me-too,'' 2 months after the President stood right up here and promised America a drug benefit that was not even real. Do not come here 2 months later and claim credit for a prescription drug benefit that is a ``me-too'' with our Republican budget. We welcome our colleagues in a bipartisan way to solve this problem, but do not tell us that this is where you have been, because you have been cutting benefits under Medicare. The President's plan did that. It is not real. Vote for the Republican plan for Medicare.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I would first like to compliment the Congressional Black Caucus on their budget. Every year since I have been in Congress, the CBC has come forward with a budget. It is not easy to do; but every single year, you have in a very responsible way outlined your priorities. And, in fact, it has always amazed me that you have been able to do a better job than even, in some instances, over the last 7 years than our President has been able to do in outlining the priorities that you happen to believe in and putting real numbers with those priorities. Your numbers add up. The concern I have with the President's budget, and it is probably the reason why the Congressional Black Caucus and so many others are providing substitute amendments is they do not agree with the priorities that the President has laid out. We did not agree with that either. We felt it was important to protect 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund; to strengthen Medicare and provide a real prescription drug benefit within that; to retire the public debt entirely; to promote tax fairness for families, farmers, seniors; to restore America's defense, and to do it in a way that recognizes that people do come first; and strength for support for education and science. Let me just talk about Medicare, because I think this is the one that probably is the most different. We have heard so many folks run to the floor today to talk about how their plan looks exactly like the Republicans, and there is a reason, because when the Democrats or through the President provided their original proposal, what we found out is that the way they paid for a prescription drug benefit was by cutting Medicare. You cut Medicare in one side to pay for increases in another side, and those increases did not even take effect to the fourth year. So the President held this great Rose Garden ceremony and had a great 96- minute State of the Union address; and he said how we were all going to have prescription drug benefit and then didn't fund it in the budget he proposed 2 weeks later. So I can understand why you would come forward with a substitute amendment, a substitute amendment that hopefully does not cut, as the President does, the kidney program, the hospital payments. As I said to a gentleman earlier today, you cannot close hospitals around this country and extend a prescription drug benefit and call that health care. If my hospital in my hometown of Manchester, Iowa, closes, that is a 30-minute drive for everybody who lives in my town for every emergency that occurs in that town, and you can add up your own miles and minutes that that would occur. You cannot cut hospitals to give a prescription drug benefit. That is why we reject the President's budget, and I believe that is why you do, too.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is interesting. I would like to focus on this prescription drug benefit and Medicare benefit that the Democrats are now rushing in at the last minute and providing. Interestingly enough, Paul and Judy, just a few months ago, I would say to my friend, did not get squat from the President. Did not get squat. In fact, when the President came here, Paul and Judy did not get a prescription drug benefit. The President promised that, but it did not start until the fourth year. And the ultimate is that Paul and Judy's hospital probably had to close because of the provider cuts that went in order to fund this so- called prescription drug benefit that the President put into his budget. So what did the Democrats do at the last minute, last night? They rushed in and said, oh no, we cannot do that. So, me too, $40 billion, just like the Republicans put into their plan. And now they come in and say, but we have a reconciliation protection. Do my colleagues know what that means? That means that the committee is instructed to do the work. But if it is not done, the Democrats can spend that $40 billion anywhere they want. The Republicans have a reserve fund for their $40 billion. It has to be spent for Medicare reform with a prescription drug benefit. Those are the facts. They can run as fast as they want from the President's budget, but the President did not provide a prescription drug benefit that was real. It included provider cuts that were real. And now they run from that, but they run in here with a weaker proposal. Let us support the Republican plan that gives Paul and Judy and the people across this country the opportunity to have a real prescription drug benefit and a real Medicare reform that not only makes sure that prescription drug benefits are available but makes sure that our hospitals and our doctors and our health care providers are able to keep giving them quality health care.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Budget have until midnight, March 20, 2000, to file a privileged report to accompany the concurrent resolution on the budget.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for a provision in H.R. 149 which is of importance to the people of Iowa's Second District. H.R. 149 authorizes the change of designation for the America's Agriculture Heritage Partnership from the Agriculture Department to the Interior Department. The Omnibus National Park and Public Lands Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333) established the America's Agriculture Heritage Partnership, more commonly known as Silos and Smokestacks, to present and interpret the history of agriculture in America. Along with Silos and Smokestacks, this act established nine other historical tourist parks as National Heritage Areas. When originally created, Silos and Smokestacks was the only National Heritage Area not designated under the Interior Department. Since 1996, all of the other National Heritage Areas have been able to coordinate their efforts because of the coalition they formed under the Interior Department. While the Board of Trustees for Silos and Smokestacks originally sought authorization through the Agriculture Department in 1996, the current Board of Trustees is seeking to change its designation to the Interior Department. I introduced the America's Agriculture Heritage Partnership Amendments of 1999 (H.R. 1493) to change this designation at the request of the current Board of Trustees. I am pleased that this legislation was included in H.R. 149. H.R. 149 will allow Silos and Smokestacks to be included in the coalition and continue its efforts to provide a unique view of our nation's agriculture heritage.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Targeted tax cuts, that is what the Democrats are offering here today. Targeted tax cuts. Here is the target, folks, right here, target, zero. That is the target. They hit it as they have every year that they were in power. Every year that they controlled this House of Representatives, they came up with a zero with regard to reducing taxes. No, taxes went up during their control. Taxes are going down under Republican control. That is why we are here today to talk about tax fairness, to talk about a time in our history where we have finally balanced the budget, where we have finally started to reduce the national debt, where we have finally taken the Social Security Trust Fund away from the big spenders. We have an opportunity today to find one small area of the Tax Code and say, for the 300,000 married couples in Iowa, as an example, it is time to put fairness into the Tax Code. What do the Democrats say? We would like to, but. Well, ``We would like to cut taxes but'' sounds a lot like we would like to reform welfare but, and voted against it. We would like to stop robbing the trust fund of Social Security, but we really would like to spend it; and they did. That sounds a lot like we would like to balance the budget but never were able to during the time they controlled the House of Representatives. It sounds like a lot of excuses from a party who could never quite get a plan put together. The minority leader came to the floor and said he does not like our plan. Well, it is high time that he came up with a plan that did something. The President at least came forward with a budget that wants to cut taxes. He raised taxes, too. That is another story; we will get into it. But at least he is trying. From the Democrats in the House, we have got a plan. It is targeted at zero. It is such a big goose egg, we need to vote against the plan, if that is what my colleagues want to call it, to target taxpayers the way the Democrats have and let us give tax relief the way the Republicans are doing it.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 1, 2000, my vote on rollcall vote No. 5 was recorded as ``nay.'' However, my vote should have been recorded as ``aye.'' I strongly support H.R. 1838, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. For almost half a century, the United States has helped maintain a balance of power in the Taiwan Strait by continuously being committed to defensively preserving Taiwan from attack from the People's Republic of China. There is concern the Clinton Administration will choose not to follow this longstanding policy regarding Taiwan. As a result, the majority in Congress has decided to act on this issue out of concern for the people of Taiwan. I believe that H.R. 1838 allows the United States to remain committed to providing Taiwan with the means necessary to maintain a self-defense capability as expressed in the Taiwan Relations Act. This legislation also allows long neglected contact between high-level American and Taiwanese military personnel. Again, my vote on rollcall vote No. 5 should have been recorded as ``aye.''

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I guess I should not be surprised that there are some who run to the floor today and try to make political issues for the next campaign. None of us should be surprised by that because it has been done so many times in the past. Whether it is prescription drugs, no, there is no debate today on that issue. There should be. Should it be on Medicare reform? You bet. HMO reform? We have had it, and we are going to have more debate. All of that debate needs to occur. But while some want to preserve those issues for a campaign, my hospitals are ready to close. Because this is the most important issue in health care that we face this year. We cannot wait while Members cut 30-second spots for their campaigns and let my hospitals close. Because I tell my colleagues that if my hospital closes, my seniors, my neighbors and I do not have health care. So while my colleagues on the other side want to fiddle around, those who have come down here to do just that, our hospitals across the country are in jeopardy of closing. So I would ask those individuals on the other side to stop the politics and let us pass this bill. And I would end my debate by just suggesting that the rural health care portions of this bill are going so far in order to make us whole over the 1997 cuts, cuts that were not meant to have the kind of impact that they have had, and I commend the committee for doing the reform.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 25, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 533-536. Had my vote been recorded, it would have been in the following manner: Rollcall vote No. 533 (on approving the journal), ``aye''; rollcall vote No. 534 (to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 754), ``aye''; rollcall vote No. 535 (to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2303), ``aye''; rollcall vote No. 536 (on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 194), ``aye''.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2260. This legislation takes a much needed step toward the Federal protection of all human life. This bill will provide doctors in Iowa's second district and throughout the country the ability to aggressively provide their patients with pain relief while prohibiting the use of federally controlled substances in assisting suicide. The purpose of this legislation is to encourage the alleviation of pain suffered by patients with advanced disease and chronic illness and pain associated with conditions that do not respond to treatment. H.R. 2260 also encourages the promotion of life of such patients and would prohibit States from enacting laws that permit physician-assisted suicide. Much of the debate surrounding H.R. 2260 focuses on the affect it will have on those who have severe pain. The opponents to H.R. 2260 worry that this legislation would hinder a doctors willingness to prescribe pain medication to the seriously ill. My home State of Iowa adopted an almost identical provision to H.R. 2260 in 1996, and the statistics show that the use of pain control drugs have almost doubled. Obviously, the Iowa law did not deter doctors from administering pain relief to the seriously ill, neither would H.R. 2260. H.R. 2260, for the first time, writes into the Controlled Substance Act protection for physicians who prescribe large doses of drugs sometimes necessary to manage intractable pain, even if this may increase the risk of death, so long as the drugs are not prescribed intentionally for the purpose of assisting suicide or euthanasia. Under this bill, a doctor who intentionally dispenses or distributes a controlled substance with the purpose of causing the suicide or euthanasia of any individual may have his license suspended or revoked. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 2260. This legislation provides doctors the ability to use federally regulated drugs for the pain management of the seriously ill.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act. I would like to start by saying how impressed I am with the progress the House has made this year in transforming the concept of Federal crop insurance reform into the legislation we have in front of us today. In 1994, as a member of the House Agriculture Committee, I had the opportunity to help write the last revision of the Federal crop insurance program. While the 1994 bill was a step in the right direction, that reform was done under the old Depression-era farm policy. I said then that the crop insurance program needed to become more farmer friendly by providing participation incentives for farmers. As everyone in this chamber should recall, on February 1, 1999, the President submitted to Congress his fiscal year (FY) 2000 budget which failed to include a single dollar for crop insurance reform. After the President submitted his budget, I began working with House Budget Committee Chairman Kasich to provide funds for crop insurance reform in the House's FY 2000 budget. After a long hard-fought battle, on March 25, 1999, the House took a critical step in securing the necessary funds to reform crop insurance this year by providing $6 billion over five years for crop insurance in the FY 2000 budget. This decision by the Budget Committee gave the House and Senate Agriculture Committees the flexibility to address the need for workable risk management tools that are available to all farmers. I applaud the House Agriculture Committee for the legislation they have brought before the House today. This legislation will provide future stability in the farm safety net by increasing premium assistance to producers, rewarding the productive capability of farmers, and creating new coverage for falling crop values and livestock losses. This legislation simply offers more choices to more farmers and less cost to farmers and taxpayers. This bill addresses the need for workable risk management tools that are available to all farmers. This is the kind of long-term help the Federal Government can and should provide to American farmers in the 21st century, without turning back the clock to Depression-era programs that had Washington bureaucrats telling farmers what to plant and where to plant it. By passing this legislation, establishing strong foreign markets, reducing burdensome regulations, and improving access to affordable financing for farmers, I believe our government can give farmers the tools they need to compete in a world market. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2559.