Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 141) to improve the calculation of the Federal subsidy rate with respect to certain small business loans, and for other purposes.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the very distinguished Committee on Small Business chairman, my neighbor and friend, brought to me a problem of the government overestimating SBA loan defaults and thereby excessively limiting the total number of small business loans made to small businesses in this country, brought that to my attention. This was happening because OMB and SBA, the Office of Management and Budget and Small Business Administration, were insisting on using old data predating recent SBA loan reforms. We have been working together with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) to resolve this problem ever since. Over a year ago, language was included in the fiscal year 2002 Treasury appropriations conference report requiring OMB and SBA to report to us on how and when the problem was going to be fixed. That report indicated that the problem would be addressed in the 2003 budget with the development of new economic models, which it was not. Last year, the SBA subsidy rate problem was not fixed. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and I wrote to OMB Director Daniels requesting that the 2003 calculation be reviewed and that the subsidy rate be resubmitted to reflect a more accurate projection of the anticipated costs. Again, they were not. Now, with the subsidy rate still not fixed, we offer this legislation as the solution, together with our colleagues in the other body. It will require that a new, better econometric model already developed by SBA and approved by OMB be implemented for the current fiscal year 2003 for calculating the 7(a) subsidy rate. This effectively requires OMB to follow through with their promise on a new model once and for all. This model should now provide a more accurate estimate of defaults in the past, present, and future loan portfolio performance to better estimate the true cost to the government of guaranteeing these important loans to our small business community. This is a detriment because the Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires any and all losses from expected borrower defaults to be covered by the government in advance with an up-front appropriation. Therefore, a lower default rate means that the same amount of money goes out a lot further and covers many more loans due to the multiplier effect. I am sure there are many small business people in our districts that have been contacting us about this. For me, I have a small business friend of mine, Bill Werger from Manchester, Iowa, who helped highlight this issue for me as he continues to struggle to open small businesses and provide economic development to a small town in Iowa. I believe that if this is done correctly, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and I expect that this result will be in the billions of dollars of additional loans being made to the small businesses of this country. This is critical because this program will help many of those small businesses during this economic recovery with cautious lenders still limiting access to capital to very willing borrowers. The SBA 7(a) program attacks this problem by guaranteeing these borrowers between 50 and 85 percent of the loans, as high as $2 million, for virtually every business purpose. Equally important to me as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, however, this bill will not do this without directing the budgetary scoring of this correction; or in other words, it will require the problem be fixed by correcting the process and not by predetermining the outcome illegitimately. It does this by allowing the use of the most recently approved subsidy cost model and methodology but with the program and economic assumptions and the historical data which we included in the President's original fiscal year 2003 budget submission. In other words, the Manzullo-Nussle-Snowe bill that we have before us today fixes the small business subsidy rate problem, thereby greatly increasing the number of loans to small businessmen and small businesswomen without compromising the process that OMB calculates the real cost to the Federal Government of providing these subsidies. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me thank the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Small Business. He has been tenacious in bringing this issue to the forefront, not only of my committee, the Committee on the Budget, but also to the attention of the Congress. He is a real champion of small business, and he is somebody that I am honored to have worked with very hard on this process. So I want to commend him on the bill that we have before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I wish to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his bipartisan approach to this bill. It truly is a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Small Business, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to allocate the time accordingly.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue to Iowa and many States, but am I understanding the gentleman correctly? Not only will it kill this bill but does it not also shut down the government? So if I vote for this and it fails and the CR does not pass, it shuts down the government and we do not get anything we want?

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, section 3(a)(4) of House Resolution 5 provides that House Concurrent Resolution 353 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress, as adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the House as though the One Hundred Eight Congress has adopted a concurrent resolution on the budget. That paragraph also directs me to submit for printing in the Congressional Record: (1) the allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 under a concurrent resolution on the budget; (2) accounts identified for advance appropriations, referred to in section 301(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 353 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress; and (3) an estimated unified surplus, referred to in section 211 of such concurrent resolution. The attached tables, which I submit for printing in the Congressional Record as directed, provide the required information.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker. I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2003 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional budget Act and section 301 of House Concurrent Resolution 353, which is currently in effect as a concurrent resolution on the budget in the House. This status report is current through January 27, 2003. The ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set forth by H. Con. Res. 353. The comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. The table does not show budget authority and outlays for years after fiscal year 2003 because appropriations for those years have not yet been considered. The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for discretionary action by each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under H. Con. Res. 353 for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2003 through 2007. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. A separate allocation for the Medicare program, as established under section 231(d) of the budget resolution, is shown for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal years 2003 through 2012. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure. It is also needed to implement section 311(b), which exempts committees that comply with their allocations from the point of order under section 311(a). The third table gives the current level for 2004 of accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 301 of H. Con. Res. 353 printed in the Congressional record. This list is needed to enforce section 301 of the budget resolution,which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that are: (i) not identified in the statement of managers or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution. Report to the Speaker from the Committee on the Budget

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolutions 5 and 14, I am submitting for printing in the Congressional Record the committees' spending allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 8, 2003. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Office of the Speaker, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Section 2 of House Resolution 14 provides that I may submit the 302(a) allocations contemplated by House Concurrent Resolution 353 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress, as adopted by the House. The attached tables, which I submit for printing in the Congressional Record, provide that information. Sincerely, Jim Nussle. Attachments.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I support the point of order. The gentleman from Massachusetts is correct that certainly appropriation bills could have moved forward. We deemed the budget in order for that process to continue. There are many reasons why appropriation bills did not move forward, but the only fact I wanted to make clear for the Record and for the purpose of precedent setting, if there will be precedent setting this evening, is that in fact it was the failure of a budget to be produced by the Senate and not failure of appropriation bills to be produced that causes this extraordinary procedure to occur this evening. I hope this is not precedent setting because it is very unfortunate that in fact for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act was passed that the other body failed to produce a budget. Mr. Speaker, I support the point of order.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, just to correct the record, the gentleman from Massachusetts is one of the experts when it comes to the rules of the House, and I commend him for that, but just to be technically correct with regard to his statement, it is not because we failed to do appropriation bills that the 302(b) allocations did not carry forward. It is because the Senate failed to produce a budget that the 302(b) allocation did not carry forward. Had a budget resolution been completed, the 302(b) allocations would have carried forward even though it was a new Congress.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague for yielding time to me. I rise in support of S. 23, which will provide a 5-month extension of the Federal emergency unemployment insurance benefits. I do so both as a member of the Committee on the Budget with an interest in the enforcement of the budget resolution deemed in effect for fiscal year 2003, and as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, under whose jurisdiction this legislation has been prepared. This measure is not inexpensive. The bill carries a $7.25 billion price tag for fiscal year 2003, and moreover, that price tag fails to take into account an additional $650 billion in costs that the Congressional Budget Office will recognize for this bill when it adjusts its budget projections at the end of this month. However, for those among the Nation's unemployed, they will find this to be a lifeline. They will find a lifeline in this legislation that will help them pay their bills, help them pay their family's bills, while they continue to look for work. As the incoming chairman of the committee charged with enforcing the budget resolution, I must, however, point out that S. 23 will exceed the budget resolution which the House adopted for fiscal year 2003 in March of last year. It would specifically exceed the allocation for the Committee on Ways and Means by $5.69 billion in budget authority for 2003, and by $1.9 billion in budget authority during the period 2003- 2007. I, however, like the President and most in Congress, recognize the seriousness of the Nation's continuing challenge regarding the unemployment rate. We must take into consideration and we must take that action now to ensure economic security for families of those who have been unemployed as a result of the continuing economic trauma our Nation has suffered since the September 11 terrorist attacks. It is with understandable reluctance that I would ever support bringing a bill to the floor that exceeds the budget resolution, but I believe that it may be warranted during periods of economic instability and insecurity. This is one of them. As of December 28, 2002, more than 800,000 American workers have had their eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits terminated. Although they have not yet found new jobs, S. 23 will prevent these workers and others who exhaust the benefits prior to May of this year from having their benefits terminated. In summary, I support this bill despite its cost because of my concern for Iowa workers and American workers who may have a hard time finding jobs during this period of instability and challenging unemployment rate. More important, I commit to drafting a budget again this year which will support and help strengthen the economic recovery and encourage long-term economic growth. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of S. 23, and I urge support of this rule.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the perseverance, dedication, and hard work of the members of America's oldest and one of the most prestigious units of our Armed Services, the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, ``The Old Guard.'' As a nation, we have held many ceremonies honoring those individuals and groups who responded to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and, without regard for their personal safety or emotional well-being, went about the sometimes gruesome task of looking for survivors in an area so devastated, few of us can even imagine the horror faced on that day. Men and women who eventually were searching for something, anything, that could help identify a victim and bring some measure of peace to anxious family members and friends. Unfortunately, as with any disaster of this magnitude, some people who assisted in the search for survivors and helped in the recovery efforts have not been identified and therefore have not been recognized for their invaluable service during the days, weeks, and months following the attacks. Traditionally, The Old Guard has served to conduct ceremonies, memorial affairs, and special events to demonstrate the excellence of the United States Army to the world. Their missions normally include conducting military ceremonies at the White House, Pentagon, and other national memorials as well as to provide funeral escorts at Arlington National Cemetery and maintain the 24-hour vigil at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. However, their normal mission changed on September 11, 2001. The Old Guard was immediately pressed into service for rescue and recovery for the disaster site at the Pentagon. Like all branches and units of our armed services, The Old Guard met the challenge in response to the terrorist attack. And like our nation, the resolve of The Old Guard was not shaken, no matter the mission. I rise today to honor the sacrifices of all our men and women in uniform involved in the war on terrorism, in particular the unique services provided by members of The U.S. Infantry's Old Guard at the Pentagon. Let us never forget the service that our military has provided over the past 225 years and the sacrifices they made to protect and preserve our freedom.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 602, I call up the bill (H.R. 5708) to reduce preexisting PAYGO balances, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUSSLE. I want to make the budget have the force of law, so that we cannot waive it all the time on the floor. That is a proposal that I recommended. There are a number that I would suggest that the committee and the Congress need to consider. But tonight we have a very simple situation that we need to address. It has been ministerially addressed in years past, and we should do so again tonight, and join together and prevent cuts to Medicare, crop insurance, military health, child support enforcement, veterans' education, and the victims of September 11. Let us follow the budget plan, let us pass this bill, and let us reject the motion to recommit, which basically says: let us not follow a plan, but let us wait and cut Medicare 3 years from now. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, budgeting is about choices, and it is about putting together a plan. We did so together with the President this last year. All of the items that we find on the PAYGO scorecard fit within that plan. All of the items as a result need to be taken care of as a result of that plan. This is our proposal to do so to avoid automatic sequestration by OMB. There has been a number of comments made tonight and I just want to respond to them. First of all, there have been those that say they want to sit down and they want to talk about the future budget, and that is fine. But you need a ticket to the dance and your ticket to the dance is to come up with a plan. Now, the Blue Dogs say they came up with a plan. Well, it is kind of interesting, the Blue Dogs, so-called Blue Dog plan was basically the Republican budget with a trigger. All right. That is kind of interesting. They did not really come up with any other ideas, except for the Republican budget with a trigger. Okay. It did not get any votes, and it did not get the majority of the votes, and, as a result, it really does not qualify much as a plan because it was our plan. There were really no other plans brought to the table. There were individual bills, however; substitutes, individual proposals. The gentleman from Texas had a farm bill that evidently does not technically fit if in fact you do not have a budget. The gentleman wrote it, wrote it under our budget, supported it, worked hard on it, I compliment the gentleman on it, I voted for it, because it fit within our budget plan. It would not fit now, would it, I would say to the gentleman and to any of my colleagues. Yet should we have automatic spending cuts? Should we have automatic cuts in Medicare in order to pay for it? No. And that is what this bill tonight does. It basically says we should not have automatic cuts in Medicare in order to accomplish that. I will admit to my colleagues on both sides, and the gentleman from Arkansas, if he thought I was trying to be funny, I was not, because there is nothing funny about it; this is very serious. It is serious for both sides, because it is fine to come down here and say that the tax cuts were too big. Then have the guts to introduce a bill to repeal them. Have the guts to come down here and vote to increase taxes. They do not have a plan that does that. I do not see too many people with the guts to introduce that kind of legislation. The same is true on our side, though. We always talk about spending restraint. Boy, we can be spellbinding some nights about how we are going to restrain spending, cut spending. We have even said ``cut spending'' when in fact that is not really what is going on very often around here. Maybe it is allowing it to grow less than somebody's idea of where it should be, and therefore somebody thinks it has been cut. The bottom line is, as we go into this next budget, we have some huge choices that we are going to have to make. We have to be serious about them. But I do think that because of the situation that we find ourselves in it is fair to allow, particularly with PAYGO, which was never written to work during times of surpluses, it was only, only written and contemplated for times of deficits, that we should allow that to expire and rewrite the rules. While we allow that to expire, wiping the slate clean I think is a fair thing to do, particularly if it is going to result in cuts in Medicare, crop insurance, veterans' education, child support recovery, and the victims of September 11. So what we are suggesting tonight is very simple. That is what the vote is about. This is not about the budget. There is no budget process reform in this bill, trust me. I have written a budget process reform bill. I would know one when I saw it. This is not it, either. All this does is it does two things. It says, follow the budget; and do not allow for automatic cuts in Medicare, crop insurance, military, child support, veterans' education, September 11, and actually a whole host of other automatic cuts that would occur.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is asking how are we going to pay for it? We passed a budget. That is how we are going to pay for it. But I guess my question is, How did you pay for your Medicare plan that you voted for which costs $1 trillion? How were you going to pay for that? Let me see here: Pomeroy, Pomeroy, why, my goodness, Pomeroy is on here, without a budget. The gentleman from North Dakota voted for a plan that cost $1 trillion, and yet he has the audacity to come down and ask how I am going to pay for it? Let me look at another one here. Let us see, tax cuts. Oh, I cannot believe the gentleman from North Dakota would have voted for tax relief. Pomeroy. My goodness, he voted to reduce revenue, and he does not have a budget; and he comes down and asks me how I am going to do it? The double standard here is amazing. We have a plan. I know the gentleman does not like it. Fine. Vote no. That is fine. But realize that when the gentleman votes no tonight, he is voting no for seniors. He is voting no for farmers. He is voting no for folks who are veterans. He is voting no for people who rely on these programs. Go ahead and vote no. Knock yourself out. Have a great philosophical discussion. These are facts that the gentleman cannot avoid. That is what he is voting no on. So it is great that he gets to vote for these great programs, trillion dollar drug benefits that the gentleman does not pay for and tax cuts that are not paid for, but then he comes down here and complains about our budget. Come up with a budget, come up with a plan, come up with some ideas, and then come back and tell us why ours are wrong. Otherwise, just vote no tonight and suffer the consequences. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the very distinguished gentleman who just spoke suggested that he read with interest our plan, and we all appreciate the fact that he did read with interest our plan. At least we have a plan to read. Since September 11, the Democrats in both bodies have yet to present a plan on how to deal with this. We understand that you oppose our position. We understand that you oppose the President's plan. We understand that you oppose the direction that we have taken, and that is fine. You have a right to do so. But I also believe if you are going to complain, you also need to propose; and as of yet, your side has yet to propose an alternative. That is why tonight we are forced to continue to go down the road that we are going, continue to follow the plan that we have put into place in the House, together with the President, and that is why tonight it is important for us to vote down the motion to recommit, which would not follow that plan, and allow this bill to pass so that we do not provide cuts in Medicare and crop insurance, which I know are important to the gentleman as well as to myself and our States, as well as to military health, child enforcement, veterans' education and the victims of September 11. It is, again, not a philosophical discussion, as the gentleman from Wisconsin said. These are real issues that are going to affect people in a real way. We want to prevent the cuts from happening. As of yet, we see no plan on how to accomplish what you are demanding from the President, even from your side, not even an idea, not even a plan. A few are bold enough to come down and say raise taxes. A few are bold enough to come down and say that entitlements should be increased. But, by and large, I have not seen anything that has gotten close to a majority of support from the Democratic side. So I would suggest to the gentleman that while he reads with interest our plan, we wait with interest for yours.

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

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

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the achievements of Alyssa Hall from Epworth, Iowa. A high school student, Alyssa attended my 2001 Youth Summit in Dubuque. During the youth summit each year, spending a full day with young Iowans encourages me about the future of our state and nation. Alyssa Hall is part of an outstanding group of students who have an enormous amount of ability and potential to make the world that surrounds them a better place. I challenged those students attending the summit in Dubuque to become active in their local areas and to let me know about their experiences. I asked them to perform some sort of service to enhance the communities they call home. I was very pleased to hear recently from Alyssa about her volunteer experiences with the Epworth Gateway Gardeners, a nonprofit organization dedicated to making their hometown a more beautiful place to live. Alyssa embraced my challenge and took action. Throughout the spring and summer months Alyssa joined the Gateway Gardeners in creating a butterfly garden near a new town walking path. She worked hard, got a little dirt under her nails and especially enjoyed tending to an area with pink petunias, Epworth's official flower. It is clear that Alyssa found the time she spent with the Epworth Gateway Gardeners to be both enjoyable and rewarding. I am sure her friends, neighbors and fellow volunteers are very appreciative of her time and effort. I want to publicly thank Alyssa for her hard work. I hope she will continue her dedication to community service in the future. She is an outstanding young American, and I am especially proud of her efforts to make Iowa a better place.

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add my voice to the many who praise George Gekas tonight on his many accomplishments in his career. He is one of the ones who has encouraged those of us who have tried to reform the budget process. Every year he introduces the bill on the automatic continuing resolution which might have come in handy maybe this year. Who knows? At almost 2 o'clock in the morning, maybe we would have been done a lot sooner. But obviously with controversy but always with a good heart and a cheerful heart. He also demonstrated to me that we also have a personal side to all of us. We are legislators, we are chairmen, we get to be big shots on the floor once in a while. But George was also the kind of guy that liked to go and tickle the ivories and play the piano. He is a frustrated musician along with a few of the rest of us around here. He had a personal side to him, too, which was fun to get to know even for someone who did not serve with him as long as some of the rest of my colleagues. I congratulate him on his bill tonight and wish him Godspeed.

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my words as well to a brief tribute to our majority leader. We would not be a majority if it was not for Dick Armey. There are many people who know that. Unfortunately, there are too many people who do not know that. His work and his labor oftentimes is done behind the scenes and oftentimes I think many people, many people are allowed to take the credit because of his work. I think it was Ronald Reagan that said that if you are willing to share the credit, you can get anything done in Washington, or something like that, and Dick Armey has always been willing to share the credit, to allow somebody to move up, to be elevated, to get their work done, to facilitate a dream on their behalf. His famous phrase or his motto has always been ``Freedom works,'' and it does work. America works because freedom works, and America is better off because of the freedom that Dick Armey has come to fight for in the Congress of the United States. This is a terrible way to end at 2:30 in the morning, because there were so many things done at 2:30 in the afternoon to be proud of, but you can be proud of all of the things that you have done from the moment you came here to the moment that you depart, and I think probably the one thing that I will always know is that you will always be there as a friend, not only to me, but to all of us. That is what I will know the most and that is what I will remember the most, is your friendship and the pat on the back and sometimes the kick in the drawers, and we all need that from time to time. That is what friends are for. I hope that friendship will continue with all of us. We wish you Godspeed and we also wish Susan and your family Godspeed, because we know there are great things ahead, because freedom does work and you will ensure that freedom continues to work in America, no matter what ventures you undertake. So Godspeed, friend. Thank you so much for your service. We love you.