Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1402. This legislation would deny dairy farmers in my congressional district and throughout the Upper Midwest much-needed, free-market- oriented reforms and would continue to threaten their ability to do business while giving an unfair advantage to other dairy farmers throughout the country. Rreforms of this Nation's Depression-era milk pricing regulations are long overdue. The current system, which H.R. 1402 would preserve, is based on outdated realities of milk production, consumption, and transportation, and has caused drastic distortions in milk production, as a result. Currently, U.S. dairy policy discriminates against Upper Midwestern Dairy producers based on the region where they produce their milk. Specifically, federal pricing regulations dictate the price of fluid milk based on distance from Eau Clair, WI. In the days before modern refrigeration, interstate highway systems, and other innovations, this policy made sense. Those days are gone, and today, this policy makes about as much sense as Microsoft pricing computers based on how far an individual resides from its corporate headquarters in Redmond, WA. The USDA's final rule makes modest steps toward pricing equity and toward a system that would allow producers to compete more fairly in the domestic marketplace. The nation's leading dairy economists, at the request of the House Agriculture Committee, conducted an analysis of USDA's pricing reforms and showed that about 60 percent of the nation's dairy producers would fare better under USDA's final rule than they would under the status quo, which would be mandated by H.R. 1402. Additionally, H.R. 1402, if enacted, would cost consumers as much as $1 billion annually in higher milk and dairy product prices. That cost is regressive, falling most heavily on low-income consumers, who use more of their income for food and more of their food budget for dairy products. USDA estimates that the federal nutrition programs, such as WIC, Food Stamps, and the School Lunch Program will take at least a $190 million hit over 5 years under H.R. 1402, and likely more. Further, while the United States continually encourages the World Trade Organization to open agricultural markets to increased competition, our domestic dairy policies are being attacked as anti- competitive and trade-distorting. In summary, I believe there are numerous reasons to oppose this bill. H.R. 1402 continues a system that props up dairy farmers in some regions of the country at the financial expense of efficient dairy farmers in Iowa and the Upper Midwest in a pricing manner that does not exist for any other product in the United States. This legislation is an added burden to taxpayers and a regressive tax increase on low- income families. Finally, this legislation represents a twisted one- size-fits-all federal mandate and a pro-isolationist trade policy which could lock U.S. dairy farmers out of the world market. For all of these reasons, I oppose H.R. 1402 and I hope my colleagues will vote to allow dairy farmers to produce for the market, and not for government programs.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. It is interesting that today we hear lots of slogans on the other side but not one debate point on any provision of this bill. Think about it. They are not against any of the provisions. In fact, they cosponsored half the provisions in this bill. But not one debate on any provision. Let us just bring up one, the farm accounts, that came back in the conference report that has not gotten much attention just yet. What that does, and I appreciate the assistance of the chairman in getting this into the conference report, what that says to farmers who are struggling right now is we want to be able to carry forward some income so that they can spread out the peaks and the valleys of what is happening in farm country right now. That combined with the death tax relief, the capital gains relief gives a real shot in the arm to American agriculture, who needs it right now. Now, I understand there are some quotes on the other side about what the leadership said. Let me remind my colleagues of a quote from the Democratic leadership: ``I think we will write off rural America.'' Well, with their vote today they are writing off rural America. If they say no to death tax relief, if they say no to capital gains relief, if they say no to the farm accounts, they are saying to those farmers that are struggling right now that we can spend their money more wisely than they can. Well, go right ahead. Because, my colleagues, it is not our money. We have not even gotten the check yet from the American people, and they are already claiming it, saying what they do with it. Well, for the last 30 years they spent the Social Security surplus. We do not want them to spend this surplus.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, in support of normal trade relations.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, come on. I would say to my colleague from California, I mean people out there listening to this, it cannot be as bad or as good as anybody is saying. Cutting education benefits. Last night we heard from colleagues saying, this is really small. It has no impact on my district at all. In fact, somebody came to the floor and said, my constituents only get $1 a month. And now we have colleagues coming to the floor saying this is the most irresponsible, devastating legislation to ever meet the Congress of the United States. Education benefits will be cut; veterans thrown out on the street. My goodness, how can it be that good and that bad all in one bill? Well, let me suggest to my colleague that it is not that good or that bad, but it does come down to a fundamental principle that all of us have to come to grips with. Number one, whose money is this? Whose money are we talking about? It is not yours, and it is not mine. It is not the Democrats'. It is not the Republicans'. It is not the Committee on Ways and Means. It is not the House of Representatives. This is not the government's money. These people who work so hard in your district, in my district, to send that money to Washington, it is their money, number one. Number two, we are not giving the money back. We are saying, keep it. We are saying, we believe you are good people in a great Nation who make better decisions about your daily lives than the government can for you. And yes, we need some of those resources to operate the Federal Government, but when we take enough, when we take too much, we are going to allow you to keep it in the future, because we believe you spend that money more wisely. Number three, I would ask the people who are listening to this debate, and I ask the Speaker and my colleagues to just speak common sense, what would you do if you had a little bit of extra money. This is what we are proposing. This is what the bill does. Throwing veterans out in the street, cutting education. Come on. We heard Medicare; we heard all of that for so many years. Nobody out there believes that. Nobody out there believes that. This is a great country. We do not do that to people. What we do is we say some of the money ought to go back to people and just stay there, let them spend it, and the rest of it ought to go to debt relief. We have an opportunity to pay down the national debt, the first time since 1969 that any serious attempt at all will be made to pay down the national debt. Is it enough? No, I would like to pay down more. Is this enough tax relief? No. I would love for people to be able to keep a little bit more. But this is a responsible balance. One-third tax relief; two-thirds debt relief. I would ask the people that are listening, does that not make sense, to keep a little bit and pay down the debt.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 15, my vote was not recorded on rollcall vote No. 296. Had my vote been recorded, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise and take this opportunity to welcome to the Chamber Pastor Don Borling, his wife Jude, son Jeremy, daughter Cassie from Orland Park, Illinois, from All Saints Lutheran Church, my home church where I grew up, starting at age 14. In fact, exactly 25 years ago tomorrow, Pastor Don Borling arrived at All Saints Lutheran Church to guide all of us, to give us inspiration, to provide for us the word of God. I want to thank him today for coming and being our guest chaplain. Mr. Speaker, we have had debate in this Chamber over the last many weeks since some of the tragedies involving young people in this country. And it comes to mind my own personal journey and, as a young teenager, the inspiration, the guidance, and the love that a pastor such as Don Borling gave to me as a young person. I do not know if that would work for everybody, but I can tell my colleagues that the inspiration that he gave me and the influence that he had on my life is something that has been as profound as any of my immediate family. And so, as we continue to labor today to figure out ways to solve the problems that face our young people, I would just commend to my colleagues that being a mentor, being an inspiration from one person to another, making the kind of connection that we need to make with young people is something that Don has taught me; and I would commend that to my colleagues.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I join with my co-authors to this amendment in thanking them for their support on behalf of so many school districts, school board members, principals, superintendents back in Iowa, teachers and even parents, that are concerned that for some reason people out here in Washington, as soon as they cross the Beltway, think that they know how to do everything with regard to discipline back home in schools. First of all, we think one size fits all, that every child and every situation deserves the exact same approach and so we mandate down to the local levels exactly how discipline ought to be taken care of. We should not really do that. I happen to be the parent of a child with a special need. Let me just invite my colleagues to be concerned. Let me invite my colleagues to advocate on behalf of her needs. Let me invite my colleagues to worry about her education. But please, let her mom and me, let her teachers, let her school board members and her community leaders and their principals and superintendents worry about how to make sure she gets the best education possible and make sure she behaves while she is there and make sure that it is appropriate when she misbehaves.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, all American children have the right to receive a quality education in a safe learning environment. Teachers and principals should be given the tools needed to provide their students with that quality education and safe learning environment. Unfortunately, federal regulations are standing in the way of allowing education officials in our communities from doing just that. Under current discipline provisions in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a special-needs student who is in possession of a weapon at school may only be suspended for up to 10 days or be placed in an alternative education setting for up to 45 days. If the student's behavior is determined to be a direct result of his or her disability, the student could return to school immediately. Over the past year and a half, I have been meeting with school administrators, principals, and teachers throughout Iowa's 2nd District to discuss this problem. Time and time again, they have told me how difficult it is to provide a safe learning environment for their students because of the two separate discipline codes they must live under--one for the main-stream students and one for the special-needs students. Together, we worked to write the Freedom to Learn Act which is very similar to this amendment we are discussing. For instance, if my son, Mark, who is a main-stream student, were to bring a gun into school he could be expelled from school immediately. If my daughter, Sarah, who is a special-needs student, were to bring a gun into school she could either be suspended for a short time or return back to her classroom. But at home, there is only one set of rules for both of my children. If Sarah and Mark get into a fight, they both receive the same punishment. What I am trying to teach my kids at home is being contradicted with how they are treated at school. A two- track discipline system does not work at home--and it does not work at school either. I offer this amendment with my colleagues because it will allow state and local education officials to establish uniform discipline policies that will apply to all students who bring weapons to school. This amendment will give school officials the freedom to protect the safety of every student in their charge without interference from the federal government. We must amend the burdensome, bureaucratic control over our local school agencies. We must allow school officials to establish disciplinary procedures and consequences that would best meet their individual needs. And, most importantly, we must provide all students with the right to learn in a safe education environment.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this commonsense legislation. It is about time that we have the opportunity here today on this floor to move legislation that will, as my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said, begin the process of patrolling what is happening with pornography, of being able to work on drugs coming into this country, being able to do what every one of our constituents back in our districts at town meetings across this country have told us, that we need to do a better job at our borders. We finally have the opportunity to pass this commonsense reform today. Yet, for some strange reason there seems to be some lingering technicality out there with regard to this legislation which is making it very difficult for all of the very positive reasons for maybe some of the Democrats to not support this legislation. I would implore those who are listening in their offices and getting ready to come over to consider voting for this that it is time that they put their word and deeds where the actions of our constituents have requested us to, and that is to pass this commonsense reform for our Customs Service.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Michigan aware that the Committee on the Budget put an extra billion dollars in the House proposal for special education this year to fund IDEA? I do not know if the gentleman voted for that, but that was an important priority from the Committee on the Budget. We did hear that. We were not trying to send just a get well card. We wanted to try and fully fund those programs, and we did not get a lot of support from the gentleman's side. That concerns us.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to thank him and the committee for their support and for their work toward the fulfillment of a commitment that has been made by the Federal Government to fully fund special education made many years ago. It was a beautiful civil rights law saying every child ought to have access to education, and yet that beautiful law has been consistently underfunded ever since. Mr. Speaker, that puts pressure on local taxes, that puts pressure on local control of education. It puts pressure on local control, it puts pressure on other education programs, general education programs, talented and gifted programs, and it puts cross pressure in a way that is totally unintended for the very people that we are trying to help. For Iowa alone it would mean $80 million of additional funds for the kids, for the programs that make sure that Iowa's children are available and ready to learn, ready to meet the commitments of a continuing and growing economic demands for those kids, Mr. Speaker. Let us not have new programs, Mr. Speaker. Let us fulfill our commitment to the existing programs first.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my thoughts about the current situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and more specifically, my deep concern about the role of the United States military in the ongoing conflict. There are no easy answers to the questions posed by the country's civil war and the reprehensible actions of Slobodan Milosovic. Thousands of Kosovars have been killed and driven out of their homes and out of their homeland. We see their suffering every night on the evening news. And we keep asking, ``What can we do?'' Without second guessing the decisions of the President and his national security team, I think it is important that we look at the status of this military action realistically. After more than a month of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the suffering of the Kosovars has not been eased. More refugees are being forced out of Kosovo every day, destabilizing other countries in the region. We are now learning that NATO bombing is killing innocent civilians. The Constitution requires that Congress act on matters of war. Accordingly, Congress has two options to address the current situation--one, declare war; or two, withdraw our troops. Declaring war on Yugoslavia is not an option. Yugoslavia has not attacked the United States, and the President has never made the case that it is in the vital interest of the U.S. to declare war. Instead, today I voted to withdraw U.S. troops from Yugoslavia because we are not at war, and yet there is no mistake that the President is indeed waging war with our troops. In fact, ninety percent of the NATO missions are flown by U.S. pilots. Until the President explains to Americans why this military action is necessary, why we are bombing a sovereign nation, and how success is determined in this mission, I do not believe U.S. troops should be participating in this military action. This current situation in Kosovo highlights an even larger and looming problem with our national defense policy. I am concerned that the President has stretched our national defense to the breaking point. We have too many deployments by too few troops who are under-trained and ill-equipped to put out fires in every corner of the world. Since 1991, U.S. troops have been deployed 33 times--compare that to only 10 deployments during the forty years of the Cold War. Mr. Speaker, the United States needs a consistent foreign policy and understanding of our role in the world. That need is more evident today than every before. I am pleased that the U.S. Congress today is fulfilling its role in helping determine that policy, and would hope that the President would do the same.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday (April 20-22), I missed a series of roll call votes (Roll Call Votes No. 92- 96). I had been granted a leave of absence by the House of Representatives to travel to and from, and to attend, the funeral of my grandmother. Had I been present during those votes, I would have cast my vote in the following manner: Rollcall vote No. 92 (To suspend the rules and pass H.R. 573) `aye' yea; Rollcall vote No. 93 (To suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 128) `aye' yea; Rollcall vote No. 94 (To agree to the Conference Report to H.R. 800) `aye' yea; Rollcall vote No. 95 (On passage of H.R. 1184) `aye' yea; and Rollcall vote No. 96 (On motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1141) `aye' yea.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman who just spoke mentioned how in our budget plan there are tax cuts for the rich. I have read it. It does not say that in here one place. I had a speaker come up here today and said how we cut funds for the Ryan White AIDS research. I will jump off the Capitol dome if Members can find the words ``Ryan White'' in here. Look for it, it is not in here. How do they say that? How do they get away with that? Do they feel no shame, getting to the floor of the House and saying Ryan White AIDS research is cut in here? Find it for me. I will wager with them. I will be glad to do that. They cannot find it. The other interesting thing about this is that they come to the floor and they say how they want to put money into veterans, they want to save social security, they do not want Medicare cuts. Why did Members not make those arguments to the President? The President's plan does all of those things. Instead of making those arguments down at the Rose Garden, down with the President, at the last minute they rush in here with two, not one but two, alternatives to the President's plan. Why are Members running away from the President? Why are they running away from the person who stood here before the Nation at the State of the Union and said how he is going to keep education as a priority, how he is going to keep making sure that Medicare and social security are a priority? Why are Members running from that plan? I have a feeling here in the next portion of this debate we are going to get a little bit of insight into why the Democrats, instead of supporting the President, instead of even adopting a portion of his plan, have written their own in a hurry to rush in here and try and save themselves from the polls that are going south on them. I think we are going to find out here in just a little bit, as the gentleman from Oklahoma, the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman from Arizona, are going to point out to us, why the President's plan has so many people running from it, and particularly people from his own party; people who we would think would at least find a few things in the budget that they could agree with. But instead, they are saying, no, we do not want to do what the President does for social security, we are running from that; we don't want to have Medicare cuts like the President, we are running from that; we don't want to increase taxes like the President does, we are running from that; we don't want to keep the priority low on education, we are running from that; we don't want veterans' hospitals to close, we are running from that. They are running and running and running. Mr. Chairman, they can run but they cannot hide. We are about to show them why.

Mr. NUSSLE. That is the problem, if the gentleman would yield.

Mr. NUSSLE. He wants to use my chart but I cannot talk about it?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I hope he does.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the last half hour has been complaining about how we have been talking about the President's budget. What did he do? He got up and talked about the President's budget. In fact, there are three budget plans sitting over on that desk over there. There is only one over here. There is one Republican plan, and one Republican plan that does a good job in these areas, but the gentleman is picking from three different numbers over there. The gentleman has to make up his mind. I understand the gentleman does not like the President's budget but the gentleman is like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs right now running around trying to figure out how to run away from this President's budget. The gentleman has to make up his mind, I would suggest.

Mr. NUSSLE. The gentleman did not bring his own charts today?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is so amazing. I mean, really, when it comes right down to it, both sides have done not a pretty good job of coming up with a budget. All right? I mean, there are only so many ways we can do it, with mandatory programs and discretionary programs. There are only a certain few ways we can do it. And so what happened was the President sat down and he said, you know what? I can spend that Social Security surplus and I can have a whole bunch of new programs that I can pass out to people and make them feel good. The Republicans sat down and said, you know what? For the first time since 1969, we are going to set all of it aside, 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, so that it is there not only for Social Security but it is there if we need to find a fix for Medicare. We set all of it aside. The President did not set all of it aside. So what happens today? The last minute, the last opportunity, in run the Democrats, oh, but we did not mean that. We did not quite mean that. We can do better. We can do better than that. We are going to set 100 percent of it aside because they are. And so they rush in here at the last minute. Well, even their last-minute plan does not quite make it. Let me show my colleagues something here. They are talking about debt reduction and how much they want to reduce the debt for their grandchildren and children, and we heard all sorts of speeches waxing philosophical about that. Let us look at the plan. The Republicans set aside more money so we can pay down the debt. The Democrats do not. Those are the facts. Yet they run in here and say, we can do better than that. Let me tell my colleagues something else that is interesting here. When it comes to education, they say this is a priority. Look what we do. The Republicans, the Republicans, spend more time than the President, who stood up here for the State the Union address and said how he is going to support education. Well, let me take my colleagues one example further. Special education. Special education. Since 1975, a program that the Democrats, to their credit, passed one of the most beautiful civil rights pieces of legislation in history, saying every American child ought to be able to attend public school. And what did they do? They did not fund it. And they have not funded it since 1975. For the first time, the Republicans are funding IDEA, special education, $1 billion extra in our budget than the President's for special education. Plus we are saying to governors and States who are crying to Washington to give them more flexibility for education, we are letting them spend excess dollars from welfare, we are giving them the ability to transfer funds from other education programs, and we are allowing them, if we get more money at the end of the year, this surplus may grow as everyone has talked about so far, in our plan we allow special education to get a little bump up. That is not in their plan, either. Mr. Chairman, it just is amazing to me with the Academy Awards being last week how they can continue to win more Academy Awards for this budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Yes. Is the gentleman who has claimed the time in opposition to this amendment opposed to the amendment?