Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

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

Mr. NUSSLE. Probably much to the chagrin of many Members who had to listen to this part of the debate.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, To facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 201 of the conference report accompanying H. Con. Res. 83, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2002 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006. This status report is current through February 4, 2002. The term ``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. 83. This 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 2002 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. 83 for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2002 through 2006. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. 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 compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2002 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2003 of accounts identified for advance appropriations in the statement of managers accompanying H. Con. Res. 83. This list is needed to enforce section 201 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advanced 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. The fifth table compares discretionary appropriations to the levels provided by section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. If at the end of a session discretionary spending in any category exceeds the limits set forth in section 251(c) (as adjusted pursuant to section 251(b)), a sequestration of amounts within that category is automatically triggered to bring spending within the established limits. As the determination of the need for a sequestration is based on the report of the President required by section 254, this table is provided for informational purposes only.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates established by H. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002. My authority to make these adjustments is derived from Sec. 101 of Division C of H.R. 3338 (Public Law 107-117), the bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002, Sec. 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, and Sec. 221(c) of H. Con. Res. 83. P.L. 107-117 increased the discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 2002. It also directed the Chairman of the Budget Committee to increase the budgetary aggregates and allocations to the House Committee on Appropriations, and to publish those revised figures in the Congressional Record. The changes in P.L. 107-117 increased the levels in the budget resolution, without changing the operation of other adjustments to the aggregates and allocations. Those changes, which are consistent with H.R. 3084 as reported by the Committee on the Budget, total $4,554,000,000 in new budget authority and $7,735,000,000 in outlays. In addition, H.R. 2888 (P.L. 107-38), the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, provided emergency-designated appropriations for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. For fiscal year 2001, those appropriations totaled $20,000,000,000 in new budget authority. Outlays flowing from that budget authority equals $131,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $13,397,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. The budgetary aggregates and 302(a) allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations are increased by these amounts. Further, the conference report on Division B of H.R. 3338 (P.L. 107- 17) permits the obligation of emergency-designated funds previously authorized in P.L. 107-38. The fiscal year 2002 allocations to the Appropriations Committee were previously increased by $20,001,000,000 in new budget authority and $9,347,000,000 in outlays to reflect the amounts in the House-reported bill. I am adjusting the budgetary aggregates and the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations for the difference between the House-reported and conference measures. This adjustment equals -$1,000,000 in new budget authority and -$1,124,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2002. The sum total of these changes raise the 302(a) allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations to $706,000,000,000 in new budget authority and $727,954,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2002. Finally, the Air Transportation and Safety and System Stabilization Act (P.L. 107-42) contained emergency provisions relating to the provision of grants and loan guarantees for airlines. The emergency- designated provisions provided $5,000,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2001 and $2,000,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2002. Outlays flowing from that budget authority total $2,300,000,000 in fiscal year 2001, $3,200,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, and $1,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. The 302(a) allocation for discretionary action to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is adjusted by these amounts. The sum of the changes to the 302(a) allocations of discretionary action increase the budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2002 to $1,673,188,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,635,652,000,000 in outlays. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski at 67270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1762, which ensures that continued viability of low-interest loans for college students. When the Budget Committee drafted the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution last spring, we sought to avert a potential crisis in the Federal Student Loan Program. The train we saw coming down the track was a change in the interest rate structure set to take place in July 2003. That change would repeal the current structure, which supports $38 billion in new, federally subsidized, student loans each year for needy college students. It would replace it with a controversial new formula that education experts warned would be potentially disruptive to the loan program. The scheduled change could jeopardize the availability of funds for student loans because it would tie interest rates to long-term treasuries. The loan program has thrived for years on interest rates that correspond to short-term Treasury rates. The scheduled change was created under the assumption that, by 2003, all student loans would be issued by the Federal Government. But 70 percent of the loans are now issued by private lenders. We have to adjust for that reality. Fixing the interest rate problem will be expensive. It will cost money because the baseline already assumes the scheduled change in interest rates. It is for this reason the FY 2002 budget resolution included a reserve fund that allowed the committee to adjust the appropriate levels in the budget resolution to offset the ``cost'' of repealing the change in interest rates. I would observe, however, that this bill does not fully comply with the terms of the budget resolution. First, the bill slightly exceeds the size of the reserve fund in the resolution. This is mostly because the Congressional Budget Office re-estimated the cost of repealing the scheduled interest rate change after Congress had adopted the budget resolution. Secondly, the budge resolution stipulated that the reserve could only be tapped if the surplus exceeded specified levels. Unfortunately, the surplus has not materialized as a result of the events of September 11 and the on-going recession. Nevertheless, I will support this bill because it was accommodated in the budget resolution. Further, neither the Budget nor Education Committees could have foreseen CBO's rescoring of the bill nor the loss of the surplus due to the recent terrorist attacks. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Boehner and Mr. McKeon for their efforts to ensure the continued viability of the student loan programs, which will issue more than 9 million new loans this year.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished minority whip just mentioned the fact that we had this big surplus going into this year. What happened to it? Well, of course, the Democrats love to blame the Bush tax cut. The fact of the matter is, as we all know, only $35 billion went out the door in the tax cut for this particular year. So where did the rest of it go? Where did the rest of the $100 billion go that the gentlewoman talked about? Is it possible that that had to do with Osama bin Laden? Is it possible that is the deepening of the pre-attack economic recession? Is it possible that is what happens when terrorism strikes America? Is it possible that you can put aside your rhetoric for just one moment and take a look at the facts, as opposed to just trying to blame people in the dead of night? Because do you know what is going to happen? Blaming people in the dead of night probably is not any more effective than trying to pass legislation in the dead of night. But one thing will be alive in the morning, and that is the action that happens. Actions will speak louder than words. When we were hit with terrorism, we passed an emergency bill. When we had to fight a war in a bipartisan way, we funded the military. But when it came to dealing with the recession, actions speak louder than words. The House acted. The House put forward a stimulus bill. The House put forward ideas and plans. But where has action come from any other place in this Capitol? Unfortunately, we have not seen much. In fact, it is easy to talk about page 100 in the Republican bill. There is not even a bill to talk about in the other body, page 100 or page 1. So, you can debate action, but when everything is said and done tonight, you are going to be voting on all of these different provisions, and you are going to have one opportunity to help New York, you are going to have one opportunity to help the victims of this attack, you are going to have one opportunity to deal with this recession, and that one opportunity will be lost if you continue to vote no. I believe that this instance will be a test for this Congress, and the question will be when the lights come on tomorrow morning and people want to find out exactly what happened, they will ask the question, who acted and who did not? I am really perplexed by the fact that we have been hearing all tonight about how the Senate has not acted. We cannot talk about that. We are not going to talk about that.

Mr. NUSSLE. I am not saying that they will not. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. NUSSLE. No, I am not talking about anything. I am talking about they cannot. Why have they not, if they can? It is that they cannot. It is not that they will not.

Mr. NUSSLE. We are not going to talk about that. But I will talk about something else, and that is they cannot. It is not a matter that they will not, they cannot. They have not. They have not.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 201 of the conference report accompanying H. Con. Res. 83, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2002 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006. This status report is current through December 5, 2001. The term ``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. 83. This 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 2002 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. 83 for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal years 2002 through 2006. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. 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 compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2002 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2003 of accounts identified for advance appropriations in the statement of managers accompanying H. Con. Res. 83. This list is needed to enforce section 201 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. The fifth table compares discretionary appropriations to the levels provided by section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. If at the end of a session discretionary spending in any category exceeds the limits set forth in section 251(c) (as adjusted pursuant to section 251(b)), a sequestration of amounts within that category is automatically triggered to bring spending within the established limits. As the determination of the need for a sequestration is based on the report of the President required by section 254, this table is provided for informational purposes only. The sixth and final table gives this same comparison relative to the revised section 251(c) limits envisioned by the budget resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the President submitted to Congress his legislative agenda for international trade. I believe this agenda benefits America's consumers, farmers, and workers. Beyond that, I believe it will successfully advance a strategy for promoting freedom, economic development and increased living standards abroad. The keystone of the President's agenda is Trade Promotion Authority or ``TPA''. TPA provides the President with a powerful tool to promote U.S. agriculture and manufactured goods abroad. As I travel through Iowa, farmers have expressed to me their support for opening world markets for U.S. farm goods. According to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, the President's primary trade negotiator, agriculture will be a primary factor in future trade negotiations. Indeed, agriculture currently accounts for more than 30% of all U.S. exports. On a national level, agricultural exports create 750,000 jobs, both on and off the farm. Expanded trade opportunities very clearly benefit Iowa farms and the commodities that are raised on them. In my home district, approximately 35% of farm products are sold abroad. One in every five rows of corn are exported. This includes not just the unprocessed corn but value- added goods that create jobs including: meat, dairy and poultry products, corn feed, biodegradable plastics, and corn syrup. Soybean producers benefit from free and open trade as well. In the year 2000, U.S. exports of soybeans, soybean meal, and soybean oil totaled more than $7 billion. Farmers want to earn a living from the land and with the free market without dependence on the government for financial assistance. TPA is essential to reach that goal. Congress is currently in the process of creating a new Farm Bill. However, any farm program devised would be fruitless without opening markets for farmers to sell their goods. Agriculture is not the only business in my district that would benefit from opening international markets. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, 217 manufacturers in northeast Iowa export goods on a regular basis. The track record for business exports in Dubuque and the Waterloo-Cedar Falls area since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been impressive to say the least. Since 1993, when NAFTA was signed into law, Dubuque has seen a 75% increase in export sales. Waterloo and Cedar Falls together have posted an impressive 95% increase in export sales during that time period! Deere & Company, a Quad Cities-based company, has several facilities throughout Iowa, including facilities in both Dubuque and Waterloo. This company's stake in opening foreign markets is very high. Deere exported $1.8 billion in U.S.-made products in 2000. This reflects 16% of its total sales and 35,000 jobs that are export dependent. Deere has a stated mission of increasing its sales overseas. This mission is of great benefit to Iowa's working families. Deere's Waterloo Works is the company's largest exporting plant. One in four of the green tractors produced in Waterloo is headed overseas. TPA is important to companies like Deere because it will help stabilize our domestic farm economy, and gives the President more latitude in negotiating tariffs with countries that are seeking to modernize their agricultural development. Waterloo Industries is much smaller than Deere, but also has a very large stake in the global marketplace. Approximately 10% of is products are sold abroad. Waterloo Industries produces high quality tool boxes and cabinets for both home and industrial use. On average, this company ships 3 semi-truckloads of these products abroad every day. This reflects $105,000 per day in sales and 1450 export dependent jobs, 10% of the company's workforce. Currently a third of Waterloo Industry's products to Canada. the remaining two-thirds are sold, among other places, in Europe, Australia, and Japan. It is my understanding that Waterloo Industries would like to expand its market in Asia and the Pacific. Tariffs for toolboxes in some Pacific rim countries are as high as 30%. I am hopeful that TPA can aid the President in negotiating a decrease of these high tariffs. For some 60 years, Presidents have used a TPA-like system to open markets abroad. Congress allowed trade negotiating authority for the President to lapse in 1995. While our economy has continued to grow and our exports have increased since that time, we can and should still do more. The European Union currently has 27 preferential agreements with other countries, Japan has 130, and the United States is a party to only three of them. This summer House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Thomas worked extensively with pro-trade Democrats to forge legislation to grant TPA while allowing Congress to retain its right to oversee the process. H.R. 3005 establishes a special trade oversight committee in Congress to consider environmental, labor, and human rights aspects of trade negotiations, and mandates the U.S. trade Representative to consult this committee on a regular basis. In addition, this legislation complies with rules established by the World Trade Organization and our other trading partners. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the 21st Century, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the world is becoming a smaller place. More efficient means of transportation and communication have connected countries and regions of the world in ways that were unimaginable just a decade ago. Given these unprecedented changes and the United States' role in the world economy, it is critical that the United States be able to negotiate fair trade agreements with overseas nations. TPA offers the tools we need to face the challenges of our changing world economy. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the H.R. 3005.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, promoting international trade is essential to our economy and to our ability to secure America's future. Granting the President authority to improve and expand trade agreements is essential to securing America's future. We cannot say that we are for trade if we vote against promoting trade authority for the President. Let me talk about agriculture. Agriculture would probably be the biggest beneficiary under this agreement and under this legislation. Thirty-five percent of agricultural goods from my district alone are exported. If you walk out into a corn field and count the rows, 1 of every 5 corn rows in Iowa is exported. But it is not just agriculture. In my district, 217 manufacturers in little old Iowa, in the Second District, export on a regular basis. John Deere, 1 of every 4 green tractors that come off the line is exported overseas. Thirty-five thousand jobs nationwide are export dependent. Revitalize our economy, create jobs, pass Trade Promotion Authority.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 467 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 301) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of Wednesday, December 5, 2001, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating to the following measures: H. Con. Res. 232, H.R. 3248, H. Con. Res. 280, H.R. 3322, H.R. 2238, H.R. 2115 and H.R. 2538.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 3338, providing appropriations for the Department of Defense. This bill does not currently comply with the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution, but is generally consistent with legislation recently marked up by the Budget Committee in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11. H.R. 3338 is actually comprised of two bills: Division A of the bill provides appropriations for the Department of Defense. Division B provides for the obligation of $20 billion in emergency-designation appropriations that was previously appropriated as part of a supplemental appropriations measure in September. Division A of the bill provides $317.2 billion in new discretionary budget authority and $308.9 billion in outlays for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002. This appropriation comes on top of approximately $21 billion that was made available to the Department of Defense in response to the terrorist attacks. In order to fully accommodate the defense levels in this bill, I am adjusting the 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations by $17.3 billion in budget authority and $14.9 billion in outlays. Section 218 of H. Con. Res. 83 authorized the Budget Committee to increase the appropriate levels in the President's budget to accommodate any structural reforms the President might propose as part of the national defense review. Once the Appropriations Committee makes the necessary changes in its 302(b) allocations, the bill would still exceed the applicable 302(b) allocation. This is mostly because the bill implicitly assumes an additional $3.4 billion for nondefense priorities than the Congress initially agreed to as part of the budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 83). You might recall that last month the Office of Management and Budget announced an agreement with the appropriations committees to increase total discretionary spending by $3.4 billion. This was apparently the price of getting an agreement with the new Senate majority. While many members of the Budget Committee believed that the discretionary allocation established pursuant to the budget resolution provided an adequate increase for nondefense priorities, we recognized the need for flexibility if the Congress was to maintain the bipartisan comity necessary to wage a successful war against terrorism. In that spirit, the Budget Committee passed H.R. 3084, which revised both the applicable levels in the budget resolution and the statutory caps of accommodate the national defense review, but an additional $3.4 billion for various nondefense priorities. While I had hoped to bring this bill to the floor before the defense appropriations, it now appears that this language will be incorporated into one or more of the appropriations conference reports. At the end of the day, I am confident that this bill will be consistent with the budget resolution as modified by H.R. 3083 to reflect our new priorities in the wake of an economic downturn and the terrorist attacks of September 11. Division B of the bill essentially permits the obligation of half of the $40 billion that was previously appropriated in response to the terrorist attacks in September. As you may recall, the supplemental expressly prohibited the Congress from obligating half of the total appropriation until a subsequent appropriations bill is enacted. Since the previous supplemental designated the entire amount as an emergency, I am required to adjust the levels in the budget resolution by the entire amount. Accordingly, this part of the bill will not exceed the applicable levels in the budget resolution. Like most of you, I am fully committed to provide whatever resources are needed to wage a successful war against terrorism. However, we would be well advised to hold off on the next installment until the executive agencies have the opportunity to absorb what is already in the pipeline. I am informed that as much as $14 billion of the $40 billion that was provided in September remains unobligated. As we have proven before, Congress will act expeditiously to respond to the terrorist acts and to fight this war. In conclusion, this bill may be a necessary response to terrorist attacks no one could have foreseen and an unprecedented midsession change in control of the Senate. At times such as this, budget concerns should not be paramount. We should set aside partisan and institutional concerns for the greater public good. Nevertheless, both the President and the Congress will soon be confronted with the economic and budgetary fallout of its actions this fall. Over the course of only four months we have now seen the fiscal year 2002 surplus fall from $176 billion to zero. It could get even worse if the economy further deteriorates or we continue to enact bills that exceed the levels established in the budget resolution. We are all going to have to continue to work together next year if we are to get the Federal Government back on a path toward fiscal responsibility.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Sec. 314 of the Congressional Budget Act and Sec. 221(c) of H. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the allocations for the House Committee on Appropriations. As provided by Sec. 218 of H. Con. Res. 83, I am increasing the allocations to accommodate House action on the President's revised request for defense spending. As reported to the House, H.R. 3338, the bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002, includes $17,347,000,000 in new budget authority and $14,932,000,000 in outlays in response to the Administration's requested increase. I am increasing the allocation by those amounts. As you know, the Committee on the Budget has reported separate legislation (H.R. 3084) that would, among other things, increase the appropriate aggregate established pursuant to H. Con. Res. 83 to reflect the President's revised defense request. It is my intention that this bill be passed freestanding or incorporated into one of the appropriations conference reports. In either event, it will be necessary to modify the language in H.R. 3084 to avoid duplication of the defense adjustment. In addition, Division B of H.R. 3338 provides for the use of emergency-designated funds previously authorized in P.L. 107-38, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations in Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. Under the provisions of both the Budget Act and the budget resolution, I must adjust the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregate upon the reporting of a bill containing emergency appropriations. The emergency-designated spending provided in Division B of H.R. 3338 totals $20,001,000,000 in new budget authority and $9,347,000,000 in outlays. Next, the conference report on H.R. 2620, the bill making appropriations for Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies for fiscal year 2002, included an emergency- designated appropriation providing $1,500,000,000 in new budget authority to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. No outlays are expected to flow from that budget authority in fiscal year 2002. The allocations had previously been adjusted by $1,300,000,000 in new budget authority and $0 in outlays for the House-Passed measure. I am adjusting the allocations and budgetary aggregate for the difference in emergency- designated appropriations in the House-Passed and conference measures. Finally, the conference report on H.R. 2217, the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, provided emergency-designated appropriations for wildland firefighting. Those appropriations totaled $400,000,000 in new budget authority and $289,000,000 in outlays. Emergency-designated appropriations were not provided in the House- Passed measure. To reflect these adjustments, I hereby increase the 302(a) allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations to $701,447,000,000 for budget authority and $707,946,000,000 for outlays. The increase in the allocation also requires an increase in the budgetary aggregates in $1,666,635,000,000 for budget authority and $1,615,644,000,000 for outlays. These adjustments apply while the legislation is under consideration and take effect upon final enactment of such legislation. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski at 67270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of H.R. 3090, the Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001. I would also use this opportunity to address some important budgetary issues raised by this bill and other legislation enacted in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks. As reported from the Committee on Ways and Means--on which I am proud to serve--the Economic Security Act would, among other things, provide an additional tax rebate, accelerate the shift to a 25-percent tax rate, repeal the corporate minimum tax, and extend various expiring tax provisions. As you know, the Congressional Budget Resolution--H. Con. Res. 83-- established a revenue floor and directed the Ways and Means and Finance Committees to report a 10-year tax cut of $1.4 trillion. Earlier this year, the Ways and Means Committee reported, and the President signed, a reconciliation bill that reduced taxes by the amount envisioned by the budget resolution. As reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, this bill would reduce projected revenue by an additional $99 billion in fiscal year 2002 and by about $195 billion over 5 years. Additionally, a provision to increase health care coverage for unemployed workers would increase outlays by $3 billion in the current fiscal year. Clearly this bill was not envisioned under the budgetary framework of the budget resolution. The bill would reduce Federal revenue below the revenue floor specified in the resolution. This would violate section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which prohibits the consideration of measures that would cause revenue to be less than the levels permitted in the budget resolution. Similarly, the refundable tax provisions and the new spending element of the bill would breach the 302(a) allocation of new budget authority that was provided to the Committee on Ways and Means pursuant to H. Con. Res. 83. Yet there are obviously times when it is appropriate to set aside budget constraints for the greater good. Perhaps the most important is during war or military conflict, when the nation's resources must be available to protect the nation itself. Another is during times of recession when it may be necessary to consider various initiatives to help sustain the economy. This year, we face both. On September 11, we entered into a new era when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. After these attacks, we committed to providing whatever resources are necessary to wage a war on terrorism. On September 18, the President signed a supplemental appropriations bill that provide $40 billion to respond to these attacks. On September 22, the President signed a bill providing economic assistance to an already beleaguered aviation industry. The terrorist attacks, in turn, exacerbated an economic slowdown that was already under way. In August, the Congressional Budget Office revised its economic forecast to reflect virtually no growth in the first half of this year. This was reflected in both lower GDP growth and higher unemployment rates. The terrorist attacks of September 11 dealt a further blow to the economy by depressing markets and rattling consumer confidence. While the Congressional Budget Act and the Balanced Budget Act both envisioned a process in which Congress could suspend various budget rules, there is simply not enough time to go through this process if the President is to have the resources to wage this war and if the economic incentives are to be helpful. The Budget Committee has moved swiftly to increase the discretionary spending limits to accommodate any additional spending. It will also take any necessary steps to ensure that the tax bill does not inadvertently trigger a sequester, which would clearly be counterproductive if the goal is to stimulate the economy. This bill clearly provides some important benefits at a time of economic weakness. I believe that this a good though not perfect package. It does manage to get money out the door to taxpayers. It also has a number of provisions that will provide incentives for Iowa businesses to create jobs, spur innovation, and invest in our government's future. I urge Members to support this bill both in the interest of reducing taxes and supporting the economy. Still we should be under no illusion where this bill, the supplemental and airline security bills will leave us. Next year we may well find that the double digit surpluses that were projected as recently as May have all but evaporated. Although a departure from the budget resolution we adopted in May can be justified as a necessary response to the extraordinary circumstances facing our country, our long-term framework should continue to be a balanced budget. We should then work to pay off as much Federal debt as possible and accumulate sufficient resources to strengthen and reform Social Security and Medicare. This will require the Congress, working together with the President, to begin to make some very tough decisions. I hope in the next few months to begin a dialogue with Members on both sides of the aisle on developing a framework for making some of these decisions.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Sec. 314 of the Congressional Budget Act and Sec. 221(c) of H. Con. Res. 83, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the allocations for the House Committee on Appropriations. As reported to the House, H.R. 3061, the bill making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2002, includes an emergency- designated appropriation providing $300,000,000 in new budget authority for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Outlays totaling $75,000,000 are expected to flow from that budget authority in fiscal year 2002. Under the provisions of both the Budget Act and the budget resolution, I must adjust the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates upon the reporting of a bill containing emergency appropriations. In addition, the bill contains appropriations for continuing disability reviews (CDRs) and adoption assistance payments. The CDR appropriation provides $433,000,000 in new budget authority and $381,000,000 in outlays in fiscal year 2002. The adoption assistance appropriation provides $20,000,000 in new budget authority and $3,000,000 in outlays this year. I also must adjust the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates upon the reporting of a bill containing appropriations for those purposes, up to the limits contained in the Budget Act. The amounts provided by the appropriations bill are within those limits. To reflect these required adjustments, I hereby increase the 302(a) allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations to $663,499,000,000 for budget authority and $683,378,000,000 for outlays. The increase in the allocation also requires an increase in the budgetary aggregates to $1,628,687,000,000 for budget authority and $1,591,076,000,000 for outlays. These adjustments apply while the legislation is under consideration and take effect upon final enactment of such legislation. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski at 67270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, the Farm Security Act of 2001. This is important to meet the needs of our changing national agricultural community, and it is within the framework of the budget resolution that we passed earlier this year. The fiscal year 2002 budget provided for this important bill $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2002, and $40 billion over the first 5 years and $73 billion over 10 years. This is on top of the $5 billion it provided for agriculture emergencies in 2001. The budget resolution accommodated these amounts by establishing a 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Agriculture for fiscal year 2002 that could be used at the committee's discretion for emergency relief and could also be used to authorize this farm bill. This is the context in which we find ourselves here today. The Committee on Agriculture, under the leadership of Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm, have done yeoman work over the last 10 months and beyond to bring us to this particular point. For those people, including the administration, who wandered up here to Capitol Hill today and said, why are we doing a farm bill: they have not been paying attention. I was shocked moments ago to get a statement of administration policy that makes it sound like they do not know why we are doing this. When the Agriculture Secretary came before my Committee on the Budget earlier this year, we put her on notice that we were going to write the farm bill this year; we were going to budget for it this year; that farmers were tired of ad hoc emergencies on top of ad hoc emergencies; that we were tired of administrations in the past who got new farm bill legislation and then did not implement it; we are tired of the fact that we are writing farm bills during a time of contracting markets overseas and thinking that a farm bill, in and of itself, will solve the problem, because we are not expanding our trade, the farm bill does not work. When we do not implement the farm bill, how can we expect farmers to survive under this kind of a situation? I know that there are people around the country that are waking up today finding out for the first time, maybe in quite a few years, that their 401(k) has collapsed. This is not news that the economy is in trouble in farm country. It has been that way for over 4 years. So for the administration or anybody else to wander to this floor today and express disbelief and wonderment, why are you writing a farm bill, because it is time to react to a very serious situation in farm country. Now, I will tell my colleagues that there is no farm bill that these two gentlemen and their committee could have created that would solve all of the problems. First of all, one size does not fit all. We all know that. Every farm is different, every ranch is different, every producer is different. They have different needs. There is not one farm bill we could create, particularly by a committee or by a Congress that could address it, but they have tried. They have addressed the trouble from the last few years. The countercyclical nature of agriculture, they have addressed it in this bill. Is it perfect? Of course not. Of course it is not perfect. But for people to say after 10 months of work to all of a sudden wake up today and say, oh, my gosh, you mean to tell me they are writing a farm bill up there on Capitol Hill? You mean to tell me that we are actually budgeting for these things instead of just shelling out money on an emergency basis? For people to wake up and assume that is a mistake, and it is a pattern that troubles me that this administration may be, in fact, falling into a similar trap of previous administrations. If this administration fails to implement, fails to expand these markets, and fails to react to the changing economics in farm country, we will not be able to compete in the global markets. Pass this bill. It fits within the budget. It deserves our careful attention during this economic situation across the country. introduction Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001. This important legislation meets the needs of our Nation's agricultural community within the framework established by the budget resolution. I take special interest in this bill, not only as a representative of an agricultural district, but also as the chairman of a committee that worked very hard to establish a fiscal framework under which this bill could be considered. assumptions in the budget resolution on farm bill This fiscal year 2002 budget provided for this important bill $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2002, $40.2 over five years, and $73.5 billion over ten years. This is on top of the $5.5 billion it provided for agricultural emergencies in fiscal year 2001. The budget resolution accommodated these amounts by establishing a 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Agriculture for fiscal years 2002 that could be used at the committee's discretion for emergency relief or reauthorization of the farm bill. It set aside the rest in a reserve fund that can only used for a reauthorization of the farm bill. In providing the necessary funds for this bill, the Budget Committee's interest was both in meeting the immediate needs of our Nation's farmers for the fiscal year just concluded and in facilitating efforts to overhaul or Nation's agricultural support system. While the budget resolution left the details of the farm bill to the Agriculture Committee, it was carefully crafted to encourage efforts to address the underlying weaknesses in existing farm programs instead of resorting to the ad hoc emergency assistance of recent years. policy issues As you know, the Committee on Agriculture already availed itself of $5.5 billion of the resources provided in the budget resolution when it reported legislation providing additional farm income support payments in fiscal year 2001, which was enacted in August of this year. The committee now brings before the House a bill that addresses some of the longer term problems confronted by the agricultural community. It does so by combining fixed crop payments with counter cyclical assistance. This affords our Nation's farmers a more stable source of income, given the wide market fluctuations we've seen in the past few years. I believe that this approach provides both the planting flexibility of the Freedom To Farm Act and the income stability of traditional agricultural programs. At the same time, the bill addresses some of the broader needs of rural America by reauthorizing key conservation programs. Obviously everyone can find something to disagree with in a bill as comprehensive as this. I for one will encourage any future conferees on this bill to fine tune some of its policies. Nevertheless, this bill represents huge progress over the ad hoc emergency assistance of the last four years. budget implications As the Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am especially pleased that Chairman Combest, Ranking Member Stenholm and the entire Agriculture Committee have succeeded in developing these reforms within the appropriate levels established by the budget resolution. As modified by the manager's amendment, the bill would increase new budget authority by $3 billion in fiscal year 2002, $35.8 billion through fiscal year 2006 and $73.1 billion through fiscal year 2011. As permitted under sections 213 and 221 of the budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 83), I am exercising my authority to increase the Agriculture Committee's 302(a) allocation to the levels necessary to permit the consideration of this bill. The letter making the adjustment has already been submitted for printing in the Congressional Record. compliance with budget resolution According to estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office, this bill comes in under the Agriculture Committee's adjusted allocation by fully $4.3 billion in fiscal year 2002 and $4.4 billion over five years. Accordingly, the bill fully complies with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits the consideration of measures that exceed the reporting committee's 302(a) allocation. Although bills such as this are only required to meet the first and five-year limits imposed by the budget resolution in the House, I would observe that over 10 years the bill comes in almost $367 million under the levels assumed in the resolution. Clearly the Agriculture Committee went to considerable pains to comply with both the letter and spirit of the budget resolution. While I would observe that this bill exceeds the budget resolution's $66 billion threshold cited in section 313 for the cost of the farm bill over the period of fiscal years 2003 and 2011 by around $3 billion. This overage is more than offset in fiscal year 2002, when the bill uses up only $3 billion of a $7 billion allocation. conclusion Once again, the Farm Security Act is a unique measure that manages to address many of the needs of our Nation's farm community within the fiscally responsible framework of the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with sections 213 and 221 of H. Con. Res. 83, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record adjustments to the section 302(a) allocation to the House Committee on Agriculture, set forth in H. Rept. 107-60, to reflect $0 billion in additional new budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2002 and $28.492 billion in additional budget authority and $25.860 billion in additional outlays for the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006. Section 213 of H. Con. Res. 83 authorizes the Chairman of the House Budget Committee to increase the 302(a) allocation of the Committee on Agriculture for legislation that reauthorizes the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 1996, title I of that Act, or other appropriate agricultural production legislation. Section 221 provides that for the purpose of enforcing H. Con. Res. 83, the applicable allocations are those set forth for fiscal year 2002 and for the total for the period of Fiscal Years 2002 through 2006. This section further provides that the Chairman is authorized to make the necessary adjustments in the allocations and aggregates to carry out the purposes of the budget resolution. Both as reported by the Committee on Agriculture and as modified by the rule, the bill is within the levels assumed for this bill in the two periods applicable to the House; Fiscal Year 2002 and for the total of Fiscal Years 2002 through 2006 as required under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Bates of my staff at 6- 7270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman I rise in favor of H.R. 2944, which provides appropriations for the District of Columbia. As modified by the rule, this bill is consistent with the budget resolution and complies with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. H.R. 2944 provides $402 million in budget authority and $409 million in outlays for fiscal year 2002. As reported by the Committee on Appropriations, the bill exceeds the subcommittee on the District of Columbia's 302(b) allocation of new budget authority by $3 million. Accordingly, the original reported bill violates section 302(f) of the budget, which stipulates that appropriations bills may not exceed the reporting subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. I understand the overage was caused by an amendment in committee, which permitted revenue collected from the sale of surplus property associated with the Lorton correctional facility in Virginia to be made available for use by the District. The appropriations committee has, to its credit, requested a self- executing rule that will bring the bill back within its 302(b) allocation. Accordingly, the bill as modified by the rule is consistent with the budget resolution and complies with the Congressional Budget Act. H.R. 2944 contains no emergency-designated appropriations, advanced appropriations, or rescissions of previously appropriated budget authority. As reported, the bill provides $44 million less in new budget authority than the enacted level for fiscal year 2001 but exceeds the President's request for fiscal year 2002 by $60 million. I commend my colleagues on the appropriations committee for producing a bill that meets the needs of the District of Columbia within the framework of the budget resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 2904, providing appropriations for military construction. H.R. 2904 provides $10.5 billion in budget authority and $9.2 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2002. It is fully consistent with the concurrent resolution on the budget and complies with the Congressional Budget Act. The bill provides exactly the amount of new budget authority permitted under the 302(b) allocation for the Subcommittee on Military Construction. Consequently, it complies with section 302(b) of the Budget Act, which stipulates that appropriation bills may not exceed the reporting subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. The bill exceeds the level requested by the President by $529 million in budget authority. The bill does not designate any emergencies. Nor does it provide any advanced appropriations. It does, however, rescind $67 million in previously appropriated budget authority. I commend my colleagues for working to produce a bill that is consistent with our national priorities and the budget resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and section 201 of the conference report accompanying H. Con. Res. 83, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal year 2002 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006. This status report is current through September 5, 2001. The term ``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. 83. This 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 2002 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. 83 for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal years 2002 through 2006. ``Discretionary action'' refers to legislation enacted after the adoption of the budget resolution. 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 compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2002 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is also needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section equally applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation. The fourth table gives the current level for 2003 of accounts identified for advance appropriations in the statement of managers accompanying H. Con. Res. 83. This list is needed to enforce section 201 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. The fifth table compares discretionary appropriations to the levels provided by section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. If at the end of a session discretionary spending in any category exceeds the limits set forth in section 251(c) (as adjusted pursuant to section 251(b)), a sequestration of amounts within that category is automatically triggered to bring spending within the establish limits. As the determination of the need for a sequestration is based on the report of the President required by section 254, this table is provided for informational purposes only. The sixth and final table gives this same comparison relative to the revised section 251(c) limits envisioned by the budget resolution.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, as the House considers H.R. 4, the Saving America's Future Energy Act, I rise to express my concern about an amendment offered by my colleagues from California to exempt their state from the oxygenate requirement of the Clean Air Act. In 1990, Congress approved the Clean Air Act Amendments to require that gasoline sold in certain areas of the country, including California, contain at least 2 percent oxygen, ``Reformulated Gasoline,'' which can be derived from adding an oxygenate to gasoline. The goal of the oxygenate requirement is to lower pollution in areas of the country that have the highest levels of air pollution. There are two main substances that are used to meet the oxygenate requirement: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) and ethanol, a fuel derived from corn. Following the 1990 law, the Chicago and Milwaukee reformulated gasoline areas chose to use ethanol and, to my knowledge, have not reported any problems with groundwater contamination, but have reported significant improvements in their air quality. Meanwhile, many of the reformulated gasoline areas in California, the Northeast, and several other areas of the country, chose to use MTBE. These areas are now reporting that about 80 percent of their drinking water contains MTBE, which does not biodegrade and which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified as a potential human carcinogen. For the last few years, California and other parts of the country have sought to solve the problem of MTBE groundwater contamination by removing the oxygenate requirement altogether. In fact, the State of California has petitioned both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration to grant a waiver to exempt the entire State from the oxygenate requirement. On June 12, the President opted to deny this request citing that the EPA has determined, time and again, that the addition of oxygen to gasoline improves air quality by improving fuel combustion and displacing more toxic gasoline components. Mr. Chairman, I believe the only prudent way to address this problem correctly is to replace MTBE in the United States with ethanol. Indeed, the transition for ethanol to reach California drivers is expected to be neither long nor difficult. It is my understanding that California will need 600 million gallons of ethanol annually to replace MTBE. Ethanol producers currently have the capacity to supply 2 billion gallons per year. This year alone, ethanol producers have already begun the process of shipping 150 million gallons to the State, cost- effectively and with no transportation impediments. In fact, letters delivered to California on behalf of railroads, barge operators, oceangoing ships, and California gasoline terminals assure that ample shipping and storage capacity exists today to move ethanol from the Midwest to California markets. I agree with my colleagues that MTBE is a danger to public health. That is why earlier this year I introduced legislation that protects the environment and public safety by totally and immediately banning the use of MTBE as a fuel additive across the United States. The Clean Air Act has done a good job in curbing dangerous emissions, and a key part of this success has been the oxygenate requirement. For the sake of keeping the air clean in California and across the United States, we cannot allow this requirement to be scaled back or waived. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Cox amendment.