Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time further, I understand that there may be some certainty on the part of the authors based on their careful work on their particular provision. But the rest of us have not had an opportunity to have the hearings, to think through the legislation, to consider all of its ramifications within a total process reform measure. And that is what concerns us. I think the proof will be in the motion to recommit. If in fact we think this is such a good bill, the motion to recommit will be just some easy motion to recommit. But my feeling is that there is going to be a motion to recommit that comes down here that is going to say, ``Hey, wait a minute, we've got problems. We better move to recommit this and exempt Social Security.'' Or move to recommit this and exempt veterans. Or all of them. I would suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that in fact if we believe this is such good legislation and if we believe the enforcement in this legislation is so perfect, then why do we on the one hand say it is not tough enough to take care of Social Security and on the other hand rush in here with a motion to recommit to try and fix it? We need to perfect this legislation in committee.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill, and request the time in opposition.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. First of all, I do not question anybody. There has been some question about motivation for why people have done what they have done here today, and I do not question the motivation of any Member up here who has spoken in favor or against this particular piece of legislation. In fact, if my colleagues just look around the Chamber at the people who have spoken here today, these are the Hall of Famers. I would say to my friend from Delaware, these are the Hall of Famers in balancing the budget and making sure that we enforce it, and I would start with that. We have enforcement mechanisms within this budget, within the budget process currently. Are they perfect? No. We all agree that we want to improve the current budget process. Now the question that we are posed with here today is, is this the time and is this the bill? This is not the time because we are currently in the middle of the negotiations. We are currently in the middle of the process to get to a balanced budget. We do not change the rules in the middle of the game. As much as I would love to at different times during legislation, we do not make that kind of judgment right now during the heat of the battle. We have tried that in the past. Those mechanisms have never worked. This is also not the bill, and in fact it is interesting to hear all of these folks come forward and say, ``Boy, I love this bill. It isn't quite perfect, and I'd love to see this amendment or that amendment,'' or ``Hey, I know, I've got an idea. Hey, I know, let's put this amendment in. Let's put this mechanism in. Hey, I know.'' We should not legislate by ``Hey, I know.''

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my concern, however, is this: It is easy to suggest that my colleagues are clear about this, but then my understanding is that what we are hearing is that there is going to be a motion to recommit that is going to be rushed in here that says, ``because we are real concerned about Social Security, and since my colleagues seem to be so concerned about Social Security, we will exempt it,'' or veterans, ``we will exempt that,'' or tax cuts, ``we will exempt that.'' Something is going to be exempted because of all of this concern. So either we are concerned and unclear or we are clear and not concerned. And that is why I think Members out there, while they want to support reform and enforcement, are concerned that this may not be the exact bill that we want to support to get that job done. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup].

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, look, there is nobody who really wants to come down here and oppose reform because, quite honestly, I think there is major bipartisan support for reform. In fact, we have seen it here today. I commend, even though I have some concerns with this bill and I oppose it, I commend my friends and colleagues on the committee on which I serve and the conference in which I am proud to be a member and the Congress of which I enjoy the kind of bipartisanship on this particular issue and others. I commend them for the work that they have done. We have bipartisan opposition, however, as well. I mean I want my colleagues to understand that, yes, there is bipartisan support, but that also means there is bipartisan opposition, and quite strong I would suggest. The committee chairs, the ranking members of the different committees of jurisdiction who want to move forward with legislation and reform are all standing foursquare in opposition to this here today. I am worried about the advertising, quite honestly. And I do not question the motives of the Members that have written this particular bill, but I am worried about the advertising. This is either advertised as tough enforcement with teeth that is going to do the job once and for all, that is going to hold our feet to the fire, that is going to be automatic, that is going to have tough caps, or it is not. It either is going to go after some of these programs that we have been concerned about on the floor here today by various Members, such as Social Security, Medicare, veterans, all assorted programs that have obvious constituencies within the House and the country, or it does not. We are not sure, and I think the proof is in the uncertainty. Send us back to committee. Vote against the bill and the motion to recommit.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I told you so. There were problems with this bill, and what happened? Here at the last minute, in a rush, without any consideration, without any light of day, without any committee process, without any disclosure to the other side, without any chance for the committees of jurisdiction to look at it, in comes the rushed motion to recommit. Just like my dad used to when as a family we used to go in and raid the refrigerator. We used to call it ``oosh-cum-noosht.'' This is ``oosh-cum-noosht''; that is what this is. That is what this is. People came out and they said, hey, I know, we can fix Social Security. Let us put in this little provision. We can fix veterans. Let us put in this provision. We can fix Medicare. Let us put in this provision. It does not have enough teeth here. It has too much teeth there. Let us rush in and let us do this, because we want to make sure that in fact we are able to improve this particular piece of legislation at the last minute in a way to save the reform process. Mr. Speaker, we do not need to save the reform process in this particular motion to recommit. The reform process has a strong foundation, laid very carefully by my good friends and colleagues that have spoken here today. That reform process will go forward. It must. If we are going to save this country from rampant deficits and national debt and bankrupt Social Security and many other problems that face this Nation, we have to go through the entire process, not a rushed bill, not a quick fix, not a quick address of the problems we heard within the debate with a motion to recommit. We have to come in and we have to go through the careful consideration and hearings and processes in order to get this job done. First we had it down here and we heard there was too much teeth. Then the advertising changed and it was, do not worry about it, there are no teeth. Then we come in and find there are even less teeth. We find out that Social Security is not going to quite have as much teeth, Medicare will not have as much teeth, the spending sequestrations are not going to have as much teeth. Is this really reform? Mr. Speaker, we need to have a careful process to go through in order to get this job done. This motion to recommit clearly does not even come close to that. I think the effort was admirable. The result missed the mark. This is only the first shot in an effort to reform the budget process. While it missed the mark, it will be heard throughout this Congress, throughout the committees. We will reform the budget process; not today.

Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, why is there a cap if this does not affect Social Security?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question very briefly?

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, if it does not cut Social Security and if it does not cut veterans benefits and if it does not cut Medicare and if it does not affect the taxes and if it does not affect any other sacred cow in the Federal Government, how is it an enforcement mechanism? Everybody is rushing down here and we are going to get a motion to recommit saying, ``Oh, don't worry about Social Security; don't worry about veterans benefits; don't worry about this. This really isn't as tough as everybody out there is saying it is.'' Then what does this do? I have been patient about this and I am not going to question anybody's motive. But if in fact this does not do any of those things which it is advertised to do, then we better send this back and find out what it does do, because if it does not do all of those things, then it does not work. And if it does not work, why are we passing it here today in a big rush to say, ``Yeah, we're tough on budgets and, yeah, we're going to balance it and, yeah, we're going to put some teeth into this process''? Come on. It is either going to be tough or it is not going to be tough. The groups out there that have studied this say it is pretty tough. Let us advertise it that way.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of the time in opposition be shared with the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], a true Hall of Famer. We have been talking about Hall of Famers today, but we have a true Hall of Famer, the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security from the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation on the point of order, and I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier someone say something close to this. I will put it a little differently: ``If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got.'' And that is pretty much what we have always learned here in the U.S. Congress. Whenever we try to come in here in a rush to try to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to affect a particular outcome, what invariably happens is that we have an outcome which is not exactly what we intended. In fact, we heard here earlier about the deals and enforcements of 1984 and 1988 and 1989 and 1990 and all sorts of other enforcement provisions in the past. And the question was asked, well, was there a single thread? And the thread was, yes, it was done in a rush. I would suggest to my colleagues that that is the thread that runs through much of this, is that we try to craft a little gimmick at the end in order to get the job done and get the ball over the goal line to score what we all want to do. And that is make sure that we have a balanced budget that it is enforceable, that we give to the American people tax relief, that we provide for spending reductions, and we do this in a way that we can all be proud of. And, so, we try to figure out little ways to do that. But what we have done here, I believe, is a rush job, which I do not question as far as motivation, but I do question as far as whether or not it has been thought out to enough of a degree that it will, in fact, work. In fact, I believe this is much akin to ``hey, I know'' kind of legislation. We rush in here and we say, ``hey, I know; I have got an idea.'' In fact, we are going to hear a ``hey, I know'' idea at the very end of this on the motion to recommit. Someone is going to run in here and say, ``hey, I know; I know there is a problem with Social Security. Let us exempt that from this particular enforcement mechanism,'' or say, ``hey, I know; the veterans have a problem with it. Let us exempt them from this motion to recommit,'' or, ``hey, I know; we want to protect these tax cuts, so let us exempt that,'' or, ``hey, I know; let us come up with something else to make sure that we do not do damage to one particular constituency or allay the concerns of one particular part of the membership so that we can get this bill passed.'' We should not legislate by ``hey, I know.'' We should send this to committee. We should go through the process which has been promised by the chairman of Committee on Rules, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means so that we can bring back to the floor before the end of the Congress, which has been the goal and commitment of both sides of the aisle, an enforcement mechanism within an overall process reform for this budget. We should do it under the auspices of the committee system with hearings which are ongoing. We should not do it when we know, in fact, that there are problems with this bill. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security was just down in the well explaining exactly how this might, in fact, affect Social Security. I am not suggesting that it does. We do not know. Part of this whole debate here today is the lack of clarity. So what I would suggest to Members that are unsure about their vote on this particular bill, because I rise in opposition even though I want an enforcement mechanism, I want budget process reform; and so I know the angst that Members are going through right now saying, ``Gosh, I wish this was the one. It is really imperfect. It does not quite meet the standards of budget process reform. But I just want to do something.'' I would ask my colleagues to consider this: If they are crystal clear about what this is going to do to Social Security, come down here and vote yes. If they are not quite sure, though, they better consider voting no. If they are clear about what this will do to tax increases in the future, come down here and vote yes. But if they think this could, in fact, raise taxes, they better come down here and vote no.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes to ask a question of the distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]. He mentioned that there has been some scare tactics today. I do not think there has been scare tactics as much as there has been uncertainty. And that is really what I was trying to bring out. Is the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] clear on the fact that Social Security, under his provision, would never be cut or veterans' benefits? That is what we are suggesting, is that we are unclear. I think Members that are coming here to vote are not necessarily persuaded that there are definite sequestrations because they did build into this some mechanisms. But the concern is that it is unclear, and that is what I think raises so much concern from those of us that oppose this particular enforcement mechanism.

Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I wanted to start by giving credit where credit is due for the reason why we are here today. Mr. Chairman, the big shots get to sit in the room and negotiate and get everything done, but there is a reason why we are here. Here comes one of the big shots now. I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, but the real big shots and the reason why we are here today is the American people. They demanded it, they said we want real entitlement reform, we want to save Medicare, we want to stop all of these increases in taxes, we want to balance the budget and we want to do it now, we do not want any phoney gimmicks, we do not want a phoney plan, we want our Representatives to get in there, work together. We know there are differences, we know there are people who are going to disagree and find all sorts of reasons to vote against it, but we want you to get the job done. So because of the American people, because they did not fall asleep at the switch, we are here today, and this is what we have: We have a budget that balances by the year 2002, and we begin at that point to begin paying off the national debt. It provides $250 billion in tax relief to small business, to farmers, to families, for job creation, for education costs, and getting, starting to get rid of that awful death tax. It ensures Medicare solvency for 10 years. My two grandmothers, in their 90's, thankfully now do not have to worry as much as they had to when the Medicare trust fund report came out just last month. It does not touch Social Security benefits, and reduces total government spending to 18.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2002. That is the first time since the first year I started high school that Federal spending will be less than 20 percent of gross domestic product. Now let me tell my colleagues, for those people who are skeptics, why this is real and why it is important. For the first time, and part of the reason why I ran for Congress was because I was so sick and tired of all of these Gramm-Rudmans this and Gramm-Rudmans that, did not know who they were; they are gentlemen, of course, but their plans did not work, and the reason why their plans did not work is an historical fact that has been argued here today many times and I am not going to go over it, except to say there are a lot of people who would flunk history if they were to take a test here today. The point is that the plans were never real. I think the way we base our decision on whether a plan is real, the same way we go in and we talk to a banker, the banker wants to see progress if one is trying to get out of debt. If one is a farmer, that is what they have got to prove, or if one is a small businessman. So let us look at the progress. In 1996 we said we were going to have a deficit of $154 billion. Where were we? $107 billion. That is progress. In 1997 we were going to have a deficit of $174 billion. Where are we? We are at $67 billion. That is progress. In the 1980's, in the 1990's, before all of this came to be, we saw the blue line way above the red line. It had never worked. We are finally showing progress and we are finally ahead of plan with regard to getting our deficit in balance. Let me just say that if I was a farmer and I came into a banker with this kind of a plan, chances are the banker would say, it is time to let you get back out there and keep doing what you are doing. But the only way, the only way this stays on track is if the American people do not fall asleep. Because this is just a plan. It is just a guidepost. We have done some of the work, yes, we are agreeing here today, and I think the plan is going to work. But the only way it is going to stay on track is if the American people do not fall asleep. I say to the American people, keep an eye on this, keep an eye on this, and this will get done.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, February 13, my vote was not recorded on rollcall vote No. 23. Had my vote been recorded, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the gentleman first of all for taking the time and for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues from Iowa in commending my friend and colleague from Iowa, Jim Ross Lightfoot. We have served during a very interesting time together. Not all of it together; you were here, of course, before I was. Interestingly enough, when I think of your service, I think probably of one of the most interesting commitments that you made, that you would serve for a period of time and then you were going to take off. That, if I am not mistaken, was 12 years. You are right at the threshold of crossing that 12-year mark, and you are ready to go on to hopefully bigger and better things. The interesting thing that that brings to mind for me is that, as most Iowans appreciate, when you make a promise and you make a commitment and you make a pledge, you keep it. That has certainly been your mantra. That has been how you have served here in this body. There have been disagreements, I am sure, with colleagues, whether it is across the aisle or even on the same aisle, but I have to tell you that when somebody sees they are going to do something and they do it, you have to have that kind of respect because around here your word is your bond. When you leave here, there is going to be a Congressional Record of all these fancy speeches and everything, but when it comes right down to it, it is that kind of friendship in remembering, when somebody said something, they meant it, and it meant something because it was backed up by the people that they represent. We know those people because we all have the pleasure of representing those folks in Iowa. I just want to say good luck to you. I thank you for your service, in being a mentor to so many of us who came after you. We are going to look for inspiration from you, hopefully, maybe from a different vantage point. We would like to see that vantage point not too far away, maybe just down the hall here in the other body, as we have to refer to it; we cannot say ``the Senate.'' We have to say ``the other body.'' So hopefully we will be able to go visit you over at the other building. Godspeed to you and to your wife Nancy. You will always be a constituent of ours because we represent all of Iowa.