Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, first I would like it start by complimenting the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) on the budget proposal that he has put forth and the rest of the Blue Dog Coalition. There are two budgets that will be up for consideration today that I would have to suggest to my colleagues are not phony. The Republican budget and the Blue Dog budget are very similar. There are a couple of things where we differ. As I think the Blue Dogs will readily admit, they bust the caps in fiscal year 2001. That is where they are coming up with all of these, whether it is for health care, and out of respect, I suggest they are correct, their budget does spend a little bit more for health care, a little bit more for veterans. But they do it by busting the caps. So we want to suggest that, do they want to do that? It is a choice. Do they want to bust the caps which got us to fiscal discipline, got us to balance in the first place, or do they not? That is the first issue. But I commend them. They are exactly right. That is what they are doing. The other budget, the Clinton budget, is totally phony when it double counts Social Security; and the same is exactly true for the Spratt budget. But at least we have got two budgets to consider. The second big issue that we have got to consider today is what to do with the surplus. The surplus, I would suggest to my colleagues, it comes to us in two different ways. One is the Social Security surplus. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and the Republicans, the Blue Dogs and the Republicans, say set it all aside. Amen. Finally we have gotten to that point. The gentleman and I have worked on that for many years. Both budgets do that. The real issue, though, is what do we do with the rest? What do we do with the rest? There we have a choice. It is an honest choice. Choice number one, the Blue Dogs say spend a little bit of it, and tax relief a little bit of it, and debt reduction a little bit of it. That is fine. I respect that. That is a good choice that people can decide on. What the Republicans say is this is not our money. We always talk about Federal dollars as if they are in our pockets out here and they are like our money. They are not. People work hard every single day of the week in order to send us that money. What they know is that they have sent enough, if not too much. What they are hoping for is that once we have done the responsible thing, once we have met the priorities of the government, once we have set aside Social Security, then and only then, which is what our budget does, only when we have set aside Social Security this year, this year do we look out and do we say the surplus ought to go back to the people that sent it here in the first place. That is why I reluctantly oppose the budget of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), because of that choice.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to say a few words in tribute to USAF Captain John F. ``Jack'' Drohan. Captain Drohan is currently serving as the Chief of Acquisition Career Management Policy working for the Under Secretary of Air Force Acquisition in the Pentagon. Tomorrow, February 26, 1999, Captain Drohan, a loyal and dedicated Air Force officer, will be promoted to the rank of Major. With this promotion, he was also selected for attendance at the Air Force's Intermediate Service School. After completing his B.S. degree in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Florida, Captain Drohan was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Air Force on May 2, 1987. He served at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio where he received a M.S. in Engineering Management from the University of Dayton. Captain Drohan also served in the Air Force's Education with Industry program for 10 months with Tracor Aerospace in Austin, Texas before serving at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. Captain Drohan is also a distinguished graduate of Squadrons Officer School and has represented his squadron at the Top Tech Air Force Instructor Competition. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Captain Jack Drohan on his promotion to Major, and extend to him my best wishes for continued service to the Air Force and our great country.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Articles of Impeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton and ask that the following statement be entered into the record outlining my reasons for supporting the Articles of Impeachment. On the night of Wednesday, Dec. 16, 1998, the President addressed the nation to inform us of his actions and lead our country as commander in chief to the correct, if not overdue, decision that Iraq must not be allowed to continue on its dangerous path creating weapons of mass destruction. And that same night, too many Americans wondered if the intentions behind his decision were in the best interest of the United States or in the best interests of Bill Clinton. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not questioning President Clinton's decision to order a military strike against Iraq. His decision may have been based on sound recommendations from the entire National Security Team. But the simple fact that we even have to wonder whether Bill Clinton made that decision to delay the impeachment debate in the U.S. House of Representatives, is proof that he can no longer lead this nation. When President Lyndon Johnson ordered military action in Vietnam, nobody questioned his motives. People questioned the decision itself, protested the decision--even died questioning the wisdom behind the decision; but never were the personal or political motives behind the decision questioned. When President George Bush ordered military strikes against Iraq as part of Desert Storm, people may have debated whether or not to let sanctions work a little longer, but nobody questioned the personal or political motives behind his decision. When President Clinton ordered military strikes against Iraq last night, the first question from Iowans, Americans and people from around the world was whether or not the president was taking this action to delay the impeachment debate-- had the movie ``Wag The Dog'' become reality? This has gone beyond President Clinton's relations with an intern. This has gone beyond perjury, and beyond lying under oath before a grand jury. You can say that everybody lies about sex. But no one can say that everybody orders Americans soldiers into harms way to delay a debate on their qualifications to lead the most powerful nation in the world. Only the president faces that decision, and we must have a president whose actions and intentions involving the lives of American men and women in uniform must be beyond reproach and beyond question. Today the ramifications of a nation dealing with a president who has committed perjury before a grand jury have become real and undeniable. We no longer have confidence in this President to make the most important decisions a commander in chief must face. My biggest fear is going to the funeral of some young Iowa man or woman who dies in this conflict and having their mother and father come up to me and ask whether or not their son or daughter died for America or died to save Bill Clinton's presidency. I don't know what I would say to those grieving parents. For that reason, I believe the president must resign immediately. I am confident that a ``President'' Al Gore can complete our military mission in Iraq and command the respect and confidence of the American people. Today, as well, I will vote in favor of all four Acticles of Impeachment as presented by the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is whether to look forward or look away. After reading the referral Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr presented to the House of Representatives on September 9, 1998, and reviewing the materials made available to us since then, I believe there is enough information to continue on with an inquiry into the impeachment of the President. Our colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee have already approved this resolution and believe a further investigation into the allegations against the President is appropriate. A vote in favor of this resolution by the full House will enable the House Judiciary Committee to proceed with their Constitutional obligations to conduct this investigation and make the necessary recommendations concerning the impeachment of the President. I vote in favor of moving the process forward.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the tax bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Chairman Archer's plan to deposit the budget surplus into a special Treasury account to save Social Security, while returning a small portion of future surpluses to the hard-working taxpayers to whom it belongs. The current budget surplus is the result of hard work and hard decisions. As a result, this year we made a historic net down payment of $84 billion on the national debt, and now we are now in a position to begin repaying the Social Security Trust Fund from years of congressional borrowing. However, there is currently little protection to ensure that surplus funds go to Social Security and are not used for increased government spending. Passage of this bill is the first important step towards preventing further looting of the Trust Fund and shoring up the Social Security system before the baby boom generation's retirement. Additionally, I commend the efforts in this bill to provide tax relief to those who need it most. America's farmers are experiencing economic hardships from low commodity and livestock prices due, in part, to decreased exports caused by the world financial crisis. The tax bill we are considering will provide relief for farmers in the form of permanent income averaging, increasing the net operating loss carryback period and clarifying the rules for taxing market transition payments. America's families desperately need to keep more of what they make. They will receive this tax relief in the form of eliminating the marriage penalty tax, and allowing them to avoid taxes on a portion of interest and dividend income they receive. Small business owners need tax relief to defray the costs of their health insurance, which is also included in this bill. The United States is currently enjoying the first balanced budget in 30 years. A feat that has not been accomplished since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. This achievement would not have been possible without the sacrifices the American people have made over the past decade, when they have paid a higher percentage in taxes than at anytime since World War II. It is right and fitting that the Committee and the Congress return a portion of their taxes to farmers, families and small businesses. I remind our Members that Deputy Commissioner Judy Chesser from the Social Security Administration testified that this plan will not negatively impact the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, I want to preserve Social Security for those in my grandmothers' generation, those in my parents' generation, those in my generation and those in my childrens' generation. I fear that if we don't take this step to protect surplus money for Social Security, Congress will do what it has done so many times before and spend the surplus money away little by little on what may seem like good policies. This legislation protects Social Security in a responsible manner, and I urge every member of this body to support it.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 3396.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Patient Protection Act. I support this bill because it establishes Association Health Plans and Health Marts as new ways to provide health insurance to workers, many of whom work for small businesses which cannot currently afford to provide health insurance to their employees. Individuals who work for small businesses are the people most likely to be without health insurance. I also applaud the increased care options this bill provides for individuals dissatisfied with the choice of doctors provided by their health plan. The national debate on health care has been focused almost exclusively on the care provided by HMOs. Providing appeals processes and other recourses for patients in HMOs are important and appropriate steps for Congress to take in order to ensure quality care. However, in all the talk over giving recourse and options to individuals with HMO coverage, both bills have overlooked the fact that the Patient Protection Act and the Kennedy-Dingell bill primarily address the fears and complaints of Americans who are fortunate enough to have real access to health care and a menu of health care options. For many Iowans, access to health care doesn't mean the ability to see a specialist on demand. There are few specialists in Grundy Center, Iowa. People in Iowa's Second District have to load a family member into the car and drive miles and miles to the nearest doctor, clinic or emergency room. A patient bill of rights means little or nothing to people whose only choice of a hospital or clinic is 40 or 50 miles away. And miles mean minutes, which are crucial in the event of an emergency. Improving access to health care in Iowa means recruiting more doctors so that people will have shorter drives, and maybe a choice of where to go. I am disappointed that neither proposal the House is considering today contains any initiatives to address the shortage of doctors in rural America. Twenty-five percent of the American population lives in rural areas. By the federal government's own count, almost 2,500 counties in our nation lack adequate medical care. Last year, Congress acted to make this shortage worse by creating a program to pay hospitals to train fewer doctors. What we need in Iowa are more doctors. The resources being spent to reduce the number of physicians would be better spent providing incentives to encourage doctors to locate in areas with inadequate access to health care. The Patient Protection Act provides valuable protections and new health care options to many individuals, and I support those goals. However, I hope that today's vote on the Patient Protection Act is the beginning of the debate on improving access to health care and not the end. This debate is essential for people in Iowa's Second District and one in which I intend to participate vigorously. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Regula and his colleagues on the Appropriations committee on their efforts to prepare this appropriations bill. While the Subcommittee was not able to fund this project, I wanted to take this opportunity to draw everyone's attention to the efforts going on to provide an interpretive center for the Upper Mississippi. The Upper Mississippi River is a national treasure because of its unique ecological and historical value which is shared by no other part of the world. An interpretive center would allow visitors to explore the social, economic and environmental history of the Upper Mississippi in an integrated and compelling way. This truly is a great-American venture which would benefit the entire nation and provide an educational and cultural base for future generations. There currently is no other project or facility along the Upper Mississippi River which celebrates this rare heritage. On March 3 of this year, Mayor Terry Duggan, Jerry Enzler, Teri Goodmann and other Mississippi River Museum officials testified before your Subcommittee about their efforts to create a world-class interpretive center that will provide visitors a unique view of the Mississippi River. I commend the entire Mississippi River Museum staff and all of the many people in Iowa, along the Mississippi and around the country for all their hard work and efforts for this noble project. The other body of this Congress has decided to provide funding for this project at a level of $1.2 million. As the appropriations process continues, I hope the benefits of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Interpretative Center will be fully considered.

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. Basically what he is saying is, ``You don't have to worry. Just keep going. Nothing needs to be changed. There's nothing wrong with what happens in Washington. There isn't one program that wastes money. There isn't one bureaucracy that needs to be changed. There isn't one program that needs to be reformed. There isn't one thing that needs to be done other than what we did last year to continue, just maintain the status quo.'' That is what the gentleman is saying. Oh, last year's agreement was so good, we do not have to change a thing. Well, go ahead and vote for that, and, as far as the Senate comment, do not make me answer whether or not we can do better than the Senate. We usually do as a body, and we will continue with this budget as well.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for both sides, and who has the right to close?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who will engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to point out something. It is interesting, as we actually look through the Spratt proposal, and this is probably something that would surprise many people because of all of the rhetoric that we have heard here today. But interestingly enough, the Democrats cut Medicare. They cut Medicare from the Republican budget; in fact, $600 million the first year, $300 million the second year, $400 million a third year, $300 million the fifth year. They cut Medicare. These are the same folks who were down here in the well just a moment ago talking about how important health care was to them, and, yet, they are running around cutting Medicare. It is one thing to claim that you are cutting, and it is another thing to claim that you are actually being responsible. I am sure there is a logical explanation for all of these Medicare cuts. I am sure they are going to claim it has something to do with fraud or waste or something like that. If that is what it is, of course I am amazed to find out all the Democrats can find within a Medicare budget is only $600 million worth of fraud. But it just points out that sometimes the rhetoric that we hear on the floor does not meet the reality of the words and figures that are on the pages. There are things like that that make it very frustrating. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who just spoke, said do not worry, do not worry, this is a doable budget, do not worry, this is a doable budget. Do my colleagues know why it is a doable budget, know why the Spratt substitute is a doable budget? Because it does nothing. It basically is a status quo, do nothing budget. It does nothing to suggest that the government is already too big and spends still too much. It does nothing to the number of programs that need to be consolidated. It does nothing with regard to suggesting to families and individuals and farmers and small business people that they pay enough in taxes. It does nothing for some of the waste that has been rooted out through a number of hearings, everything from $800 outhouses in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area to $584,000 homes built for park employees in Yosemite National Park to 26, and here is a do nothing, here is a let us keep the status quo: 26,000 people in 4 States receiving food stamps who are dead. So, yes, let us do nothing, let us keep the status quo, let us vote for a budget that basically says we cannot do better than that. We cannot find a penny on the dollar. We cannot say to the American people that what they earn and what they make and what they save is more important than what happens out here in Washington, D.C. on a daily regular basis. That is do nothing. Mr. Chairman, we do not have to worry because we have got the IRS. We can take their money out here. We do not have to worry, as the gentleman says from Virginia. Well, okay, I guess they do not want to worry. I guess most of us on this side, and the reason why the Republicans put this budget together, was because we are worried. We are worried about the future for our kids, we are worried about the future for Social Security, we are worried about the future for health care, we want to make sure that the welfare reforms continue to progress in a responsible and a positive way, we want to make sure our kids get a decent education, controlled at home. We are worried; that is why you need to vote for the Republican budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), my colleague on the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this bill. As the lead House conferee on the revenue title of H.R. 2400, I want to begin by thanking the Speaker for the honor of leading the House of Representatives as the conferee on the House tax title. In particular, I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for his assistance and leadership and guidance during this conference, as well as staff members Jim Clark, Norah Mosely and Ben Hartley of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Rich Meade on my staff. The provisions of this title I think are important, first of all, because it continues the Highway Trust Fund, the mass transit account, for an additional 6 years through the fiscal year 2005. As many of my colleagues know as well, I, along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and many others, worked to include in the conference report a continuation of the Federal Government's commitment to a clean-burning, renewable fuel, such as ethanol, until the year 2007. This conference report also simplifies the matter in which gasoline and diesel fuel tax refunds are administered. This is welcome news to registered fuel terminals and those who seek a simplified refund procedure for motor fuel excise taxes. Railroads currently face an onerous fuels tax which was imposed in the name of deficit reduction a number of years ago. This conference report begins to roll back those taxes by 1.25 cents per gallon starting in November of 1998. More than half of the taxes sport fishermen and other users of motor boat fuels pay are not used for aquatic resources, but instead was dedicated for ``budget deficit reduction.'' This conference report takes a big step towards dedicating those revenues for aquatic resources restoration and development. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) worked very hard to include a provision in the conference report to allow Amtrak more flexibility to use their funds in States where Amtrak does not operate. This provision will allow States such as South Dakota to enhance their rail service in their States. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference report expands the tax-favored treatment to employer-provided transit passes and van pooling. More specifically, the conference agreement would allow employers to offer their workers the option of electing cash compensation in lieu of any qualified transportation benefit. In addition, the inclusion for transit passes and van pooling benefits is increased by $100 per month beginning in 2002. I want to again thank the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for his leadership. I want to thank my fellow conferees.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. By the way, that was bipartisanship. I am glad that there are at least some folks that are coming down here in a very bipartisan way talking about drugs but, unfortunately, that is not happening all the way across the board. Just to clear up a couple of things that have been discussed here today. I was at a meeting. It was not staff that had the meeting with Customs about whether or not to put these changes in in section B. I was at the meeting. They asked for it. They are part of the administration. It has been a bipartisan effort to make these changes from the beginning. If somebody did not happen to be at the meeting, that is not my fault. That is not Customs' fault. But this has been going on for a long time. And I realize that there are a few people that have got their noses out of joint. But it is not because, I do not believe, they believe we should not be doing things about drugs. It is for other reasons. Let me just tell my colleagues a little bit about this bill that I think we need to consider. One is that there is no abrogation of contract. All right? There is no such thing as that in this bill. What there is is that there is a time limit, and it says, ``If you cannot get your ducks in order within 90 days,'' and we have had examples that have been pointed out that have been as long as 4 years and running where opportunities to make agreements between the union members and management have not been worked out, ``exigent circumstances can be grounds for making these changes.'' Let me just give my colleagues an example of what exigent circumstance might be. Back this last year, in March of 1997, the FBI intelligence discovered that there was a drug smuggling ring on the border of California that was going to use extreme measures in retaliation for lost shipments of drugs; and, so, what the Customs Service did was they said to their workers, ``You are ordered to wear bullet-proof vests and body armor.'' And so what happened? Union representatives said, ``That is not in our contract. We don't have to.'' Well, body armor and bullet-proof vests are not just there for the protection of the one person who wears it or a union member. It is there to protect the border. And it in that kind of exigent circumstance that the Customs Department needs to be able to suggest that current union contracts do not stand in the way of bullets flying at the border. Body armor stands in the way, possibly. So not contracts, not union organizations, but exigent circumstances in this instance needed to be the grounds for this extreme measure. It needs to be part of this bill. The Customs Service has asked for it. It has been bipartisan. Let us vote for this bill.