Jim Nussle

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his effort to address the problem of the railroad retirement system's solvency and to improve the benefits of railroad retirees and their surviving spouses. The fundamental problem is that there is currently only one railroad worker for every three beneficiaries, and that ratio is only getting worse. I agree that steps need to be taken to ensure the long term solvency of the railroad retirement system. However, I must share with my colleagues an important concern regarding this bill's potential impact on the federal budget. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I worked with the Committee Chairmen, House Leadership and the Administration to alleviate this same concern, which may have been incorrectly perceived as delaying its consideration on the floor. This bill raises a technical question about how the government should treat the transfer of financial assets from the railroad retirement account to a new trust fund for the purchase of private securities. Under the existing rules for estimating the cost of legislation, the investment of railroad retirement funds in private securities is considered by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget as an expenditure and would result in $15.6 billion in new government spending in fiscal year 2002. This is because the funds would no longer be held or controlled by the U.S. Treasury. There is another view held by many budget analysts that this transaction should simply be considered a means of financing the federal debt, and not as government spending. In other words, the investment of these assets would be considered a transfer of funds from one part of the federal government to another. Under this view, the investment of these bonds, which are currently in government securities, in private securities would have no net effect on the budget. I believe that this view is not unreasonable if the benefits of any return on investment accrue to a government-administered trust fund; that they are not used to finance new federal spending programs; and the investment decisions are walled off from political considerations or manipulation. I am, however, opposed to a provision in the bill that directs OMB and CBO to estimate the cost of this bill, not on the basis of what they objectively think it actually costs, but what the Congress thinks it should cost. I do not believe that Congress should arbitrarily substitute its judgment for that of our budget experts. As I support the overarching goal of restoring solvency to the railroad retirement system, I voted in favor of the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that the bill requires additional work if it is to both serve the important needs of our country's hard working railroad employees and ensure that we maintain a balanced federal budget. Thus, I urge the President and the Congress to continue to work toward producing a final bill that does not tell OMB and CBO how much it costs, and which incorporates provisions that will protect our hard earned budget surplus.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, not one penny of the Medicare funds will be used for anything except Medicare. That is the commitment in this budget. That remains. If the projections change in August, it is because of one reason: there has been a downturn in the economy. And why? If there is a downturn in the economy, it is for a number of reasons. We warned President Clinton about those reasons. The number one reason, Mr. Speaker, the number one reason that we warned President Clinton about was that taxes were too high. We changed that this year in the budget and in the tax bills. Number two is because we had no trade policy for this country, and we will change that as a result of this Congress. But the most important reason why there has been a downturn in this economy is because this Nation has not had a long-term energy strategy. Vote down this motion to recommit, and let us pass a long-term energy strategy for this country and get this economy going again.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 220, providing appropriations to the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and various independent agencies. While I have some concern about several provisions in the bill, the bill is technically consistent with the Budget Resolution and complies with the Budget Act. H.R. 2620 provides $85.4 billion in budget authority and $88.1 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2002. The bill does not exceed the VA-HUD subcommittee's adjusted 302(b) allocation. Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which prohibits measures that exceed the reporting subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. This bill designates $1.3 billion in emergencies, which triggers an automatic increase in the corresponding levels in both the Budget Resolution and the statutory caps. The appropriation is for FEMA Disaster Relief Operations in response to the recent tropical storm in Houston, Texas. It is not entirely clear that the designation is necessary because the Budget Resolution provides ample resources for emergencies. With this said, the emergency designation is clearly permitted under existing law. H.R. 2620 also provides $4.2 billion in advanced appropriations for the Section 8 Housing Certificate Program, which will be counted against the levels established in next year's Budget Resolution. This advanced appropriation is on the list of permissible appropriations under section 201 of H. Con. Res. 84. I am somewhat concerned about several purported ``offsets'' in this bill. The bill claims $7 million from the repeal of a provision that was already signed into law. It claims another $121 million in savings from a veterans-related provision that already passed the House. Obviously, these savings can only be used once. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am obligated to report to the Congress on how the appropriations bills compare to the Budget Resolution. Under existing law, this bill is consistent with the Budget Resolution and does not violate the Budget Act. Nevertheless, the existing process with respect to emergencies is broken and needs to be fixed. At the very least, both Congress and the President should set aside resources for emergencies and restrict the use of these resources for legitimate emergencies.

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. Adoption of the conference report on H.R. 2216, the bill making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2001, reverses the $184,000,000 outlay adjustment for fiscal year 2002 that was required upon the reporting of that bill by the Appropriations Committee. The conference report on the supplemental did not include any emergency- designated appropriations, which necessitated the earlier adjustment. As reported to the House, H.R. 2620, the bill making appropriations for Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies for fiscal year 2002, includes an emergency-designated appropriations providing $1,300,000,000 in new budget authority to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. No outlays are expected to flow from that budget authority in fiscal year 2002. 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. As passed by the House, H.R. 2590, the bill making appropriations for the Department of Treasury, the Postal Service, and General Government for fiscal year 2002, included $146,000,000 in new budget authority and $143,000,000 in outlays for an earned income tax credit compliance initiative. I also must adjust the 302(a) allocations and budgetary aggregates upon the reporting of a bill containing appropriations for that purpose, up to the limits specified in the Budget Act (which are the same as the amounts shown above). To reflect these required adjustments, I hereby increase the 302(a) allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations to $662,746,000,000 for budget authority and $682,919,000,000 for outlays. The increase in the allocation also requires an increase in the budgetary aggregates to $1,627,934,000,000 for budget authority and $1,590,617,000,000 for outlays. These adjustments apply while the relevant 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 move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 2590 providing appropriations for the Department of Treasury, Postal Service and various general government operations. I compliment the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member, for their work on this bill, as well as for their cooperation in making sure that this bill complies with the Budget Act and the budget resolution of 2002. H.R. 2590 provides $17 billion in budget authority and $16.3 billion in general outlays for fiscal year 2002. This amount is within the subcommittee on Treasury and postal services and general operations 302(b) allocation, and the bill, therefore, complies with section 302 after the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The bill also provides $48 million in advance appropriations for fiscal year 2003, which will account against the allocation established pursuant to next year's budget resolution. This is an advance appropriation which is included in the list of permissible advance appropriations pursuant to section 201 of H. Con. Res. 83, which is the budget. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2590 does not designate any emergencies, an act that would increase the appropriation committee's 302(b) allocation. The bill provides $146 million in budget authority for compliance activities related to the earned income tax credit, as the gentleman from Maryland previously stated. Under section 314 of the Budget Act, I am required to increase the appropriate totals in the budget resolution and appropriation committee's 302 allocation by the amount that is appropriated for this activity, up to a maximum of $146 million. So accordingly, I have increased that appropriation committee's allocation. But this will not become permanent until the appropriation bill itself becomes law. I would note with some amusement that this bill also includes a limitation that prohibits appropriations from being used to pay the salaries of OMB staff who prepare a table that shows the President's discretionary priorities across the 13 appropriation subcommittees. It seems rather curious that while the individual appropriation bills themselves are, of course, submitted to the President of the United States for his approval, he should not be allowed or his staff should not be allowed to even suggest how the overall level of discretionary spending should be allocated among the subcommittees. I would support an amendment to strike this provision. If such an amendment is not offered, I would strongly suggest to the chairman and the ranking member that this provision be dropped in conference. This is irrelevant to this appropriation bill. I would suggest to the committee leadership who have put together a very professional work product that this is a small-minded provision and has no business within this very serious bipartisan work product. In summary, H.R. 2590 is fully consistent with the budget resolution and on this basis, I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill. Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 23, my vote was not recorded on rollcall votes Nos. 257-259. Had my votes been recorded, they would have been in the following manner: Rollcall vote No. 257 (to suspend the rules and pass, as amended H.R. 2137)--' ``yea''. Rollcall vote No. 258 (to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, H.R. 1892)--' ``yea''. Rollcall vote No. 259 (to suspend the rules and pass S. 468)--' ``yea''.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of H.R. 2506, a bill providing the appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs. As chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I am pleased to report to my colleagues that this bill is within the appropriate levels of the budget resolution and complies with the Congressional Budget Act. H.R. 2506 provides $15.2 billion in budget authority and $15.1 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2002. The bill does not provide any advanced appropriations or designate any emergency appropriations. The amount of the new budget authority provided in this bill is within the 302(b) allocation of the subcommittee, and is also compliant with section 301(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of measures that exceed the reporting subcommittee's 302(b) allocations. In summary, this bill is consistent with the budget resolution that the Congress has agreed to earlier. On that basis, as well as for the content therein, it is worthy of our support. I support the bill, and I congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) on his fine work, as well as the other subcommittee members, in bringing this bill to the floor.

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 July 11, 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. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his clarification of this matter.

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the rule and to speak in favor of H.R. 2330, providing appropriations for agriculture and related agencies. As reported by the Committee on Appropriations, this bill is technically consistent with the budget resolution and complies with the Congressional Budget Act. As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I wish to report to my colleagues that H.R. 2330 provides $15.7 billion in budget authority and $15.97 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2002. The bill does not provide any advanced appropriations. As reported, the bill also designates $150 million in emergencies, which increased both the levels of the budget resolution and the caps by the same amount. It also rescinds $3.7 billion, but this rescission produces no savings in outlays. As reported by the Committee on Appropriations on June 27, the bill does exceed the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug's 302(b) allocation. Therefore, it does not violate section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits the consideration of appropriation legislation that exceeds the reporting subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. Members may be aware that I am concerned and have been concerned that the reported bill designates $150 million as an emergency for the purpose that is already accommodated in the budget resolution. This designation had the effect of increasing the levels of the budget resolution and the statutory caps by the same amount. The budget resolution clearly anticipated the need for additional agricultural assistance by increasing the Committee on Agriculture's allocation by $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001. Indeed, earlier this same week, the House passed a bill that provided that same $5.5 billion in agricultural emergency assistance. That bill provided $169 million for the producers of specialty crops. In addition, the budget resolution provided another $7.3 billion of agriculture spending in fiscal year 2002 and included a procedure that could increase the total to as much as $63 billion. The Committee on Agriculture is free to use that portion and allocation as it sees fit for specialty crops. While I continue to have concerns about the emergency designation, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and I have agreed, and we just shared that colloquy on the floor a moment ago, that the designation would be stricken by this rule and that the bill would be protected from resulting points of order. Furthermore, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) agreed that the Committee on Appropriations would revise its 302(b) allocations and reflect the fact that the bill would be offset by other appropriation bills. It was further agreed that the offsets would not come out of the bills that have already passed the House or bring Defense below the levels of the President's budget submission. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is a man of his word. He has done his best in bringing this bill to the floor, as has the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). In view of the good faith comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and commitments in this regard, I urge Members not only to support the bill but to support the rule.

Mr. NUSSLE. It is my further understanding that the Committee on Appropriations will increase the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation to the level provided by this bill and adjust the 302(b) allocations for other subcommittees by an offsetting amount.

Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the gentleman. It is my understanding that upon adoption of the rule, the appropriations bill will exceed the Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development's 302(b) allocation by $150 million.

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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 hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the allocations for the House Committee on Appropriations. As reported to the House, H.R. 2330, the bill making appropriations for Agriculture and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2002, includes an emergency-designated appropriation providing $150,000,000 in new budget authority and $143,000,000 in new outlays. 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. Accordingly, I increase the 302(a) allocation to the House Appropriations Committee contained in House Report 107-100 by $150,000,000 in new budget authority and $143,000,000 in new outlays. This changes the 302(a) allocation for fiscal year 2002 to $661,450,000,000 for budget authority and $683,103,000,000 for outlays. The increase in the allocation also requires an increase in the budgetary aggregates to $1,626,638,000,000 for budget authority and $1,590,801,000,000 for outlays. The rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2330 strikes the emergency designation from the appropriation. Upon adoption of the rule, Sec. 314 of the Congressional Budget Act provides that these adjusted levels are automatically reduced by the amount that had been designated an emergency. Should the rule (H. Res. 183) not be adopted, these adjustments shall apply while the legislation is under consideration and shall take effect upon final enactment of the legislation. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski at 67270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 2311, making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 2002. This bill is consistent with the levels set forth in the budget resolution and complies with the Budget Act. H.R. 2311 provides $23.7 billion in discretionary budget authority and $24.9 in outlays for the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Reclamation and various independent agencies. This is a straightforward bill that neither designates emergencies nor provides advanced appropriations. The bill also does not rescind any previously enacted budget authority. The bill is within the 302(b) allocation of the Appropriations' Subcommittee on Energy and Water. It therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of appropriations measures that exceed the appropriate subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. On this basis, H.R. 2311 is worthy of our support.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, first, I rise in support of the rule. I share the concern that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is raising about Mexican trucks. This is the wrong place and the wrong way to address it, in an appropriations bill. I think there is a lot of concern over the Mexican truck issue, and we need to find a way to resolve that. This is not the place. I rise in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 2299, making transportation appropriations for fiscal year 2002. As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I want to report to my colleagues that this bill is consistent with the budget resolution, and it complies with the applicable sections under the Congressional Budget Act. H.R. 2299 provides $14.9 billion for the Department of Transportation and several transportation-related agencies. The bill includes $307 billion in rescission of previously enacted budget authority. The bill is within the 302(a) allocations of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation and, therefore, complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits the consideration of appropriation measures that exceed the appropriate subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. Madam Speaker, I would observe that, based on the congressional scoring that we have before us, the bill would exceed the statutory caps on highways and mass transit. Under the Budget Enforcement Act, any bill that breaches its caps triggers an across-the-board sequester in programs under that cap, but I further understand that the Committee on Appropriations believes and will work to ensure that this bill will come in under the caps when it is scored by OMB. It is OMB scoring that is used to enforce the caps and trigger any sequester. Madam Speaker, I urge that the conference committee and the chairman consider this concern and ensure that the final bill is consistent with both the budget resolution and the highway and mass transit caps. Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and support not only the rule, but the underlying bill of H.R. 2299

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2213, the Fiscal Year 2001 Economic Assistance Act. It provides $5.5 billion in markets loss payments and other agriculture assistance. I am pleased that the Committee on the Budget was able to work hand in hand with the Committee on Agriculture to make this bill possible. Recognizing the needs of farmers, the Committee on Budget reported and the House passed a budget resolution that revised the allocations and budgetary totals for the current fiscal year to accommodate $5.5 billion in additional emergency agricultural assistance for the crop year of 2001. We budgeted for this emergency. This fits within the budget. It is responsible. All the Committee on the Budget asked was that the Committee on Agriculture produce a straightforward bill that avoided accounting gimmicks and reserved sufficient funds to meet future crop year needs and permanently reform agricultural assistance programs so we can move away from this Band-Aid approach of the past 3 years. H.R. 2213 more than up holds the Committee on Agriculture's part of this bargain. As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I have the privilege of reporting to my colleagues that this bill is within the budget. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest), the gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Chambliss), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member, for their hard work on this and all the members of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2217, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. It is consistent with the budget resolution as required under the Congressional Budget Act. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2217, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. This bill is consistent with the budget resolution as required under the Congressional Budget Act. This is the first of 13 appropriations bills that the House will consider under the 302(a) allocation set forth in the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002. In accordance with the Budget Act, the Committee on Appropriations subdivided this allocation among its 13 subcommittees earlier this week. I am confident that the 302(b) allocations represent a good faith effort by the Appropriations Committee and its distinguished chairman to comply with the overall discretionary levels agreed to as part of the budget resolution. As reported, H.R. 2217 provides $18.9 billion in new budget authority and $17.8 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2002. The bill does not designate any of the new budget authority it provides as an emergency, not does it rescind previously enacted budget authority. The bill is within the subcommittee on the Interior 302(b) allocation and therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits the consideration of appropriation measures that exceed the appropriate subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. I would note, however, that the bill changes the classification of four fairly small programs under the separate spending cap that was adopted last year. Both the caps and the classification of programs under those caps is under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Accordingly, the bill violates section 306 of the Budget Act, which prohibits the consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. I would ask the subcommittee to work with the Budget Committee on the appropriate classification of these programs in conference and on comparable measures in the future. In summary, this bill is consistent with the budget resolution agreed by the Congress and, on this basis, I support the bill.

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revisions to the allocations for the House Committee on Appropriations. As reported to the House, H.R. 2216, the bill making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2001, increases emergency-designated appropriations for fiscal year 2001 by $84,000,000 in budget authority and $59,000,000 in outlays. Those emergency-designated appropriations also increase fiscal year 2002 outlays by $184,000,000. 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. Accordingly, I increase the fiscal year 2001 302(a) allocation to the House Appropriations Committee contained in House Report 107-104 by $84,000,000 in new budget authority and $59,000,000 in new outlays. This changes the fiscal year 2001 302(a) allocation to that Committee to $642,063,000,000 in budget authority and $647,147,000,000 in outlays. I also increase the fiscal year 2002 302(a) allocation to the House Appropriations Committee contained in House Report 107-100 by $184,000,000 in outlays. This increases the outlay allocation to that Committee for fiscal year 2002 to $682,960,000,000. The increase in the allocations also requires an increase in the budgetary aggregates. For fiscal year 2001, the adjusted levels are $1,653,765,000,000 for budget authority and $1,600,588,000,000 for outlays. For fiscal year 2002, the outlay aggregate is $1,590,658,000,000. These adjustments shall apply while the legislation is under consideration and shall take effect upon final enactment of the legislation. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski at 67270.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2216, a bill providing supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2001. As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I would advise my colleagues that this bill is within the levels established by the budget resolution and complies with the Congressional Budget Act. H.R. 2216 provides for a net increase in budget authority of $6.5 billion. This amount reflects appropriations of $7.9 billion in new budget authority and a rescission of $1.4 billion. The vast majority of the appropriations provided by this bill is related to national defense. The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002, H. Con. Res. 83, revised the 302(a) allocations to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2001 to accommodate this supplemental appropriations bill, providing up to $6.5 billion in nonemergency supplemental appropriations. The bill is within the revised 302(b) allocations to the Committee on Appropriations established by the budget resolution and therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. This bill deserves our support. The Committee on Appropriations deserves our commendations for meeting our defense and domestic needs while staying within the levels agreed to by the Congress as part of the budget resolution. I compliment the chairman and the committee on doing so and I rise, as I say, in support of this H.R. 2216.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in support of H.R. 1088, the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act of 2001. As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I can report to my colleagues that this important bill is fully contemplated and consistent with the recently-agreed conference report on the budget resolution for fiscal year 2002. The combined reduction in revenue from this bill, with $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2002 and $8.8 billion for the first 5 years, and the recently-enacted Economic Growth and Freedom Act of 2001, is fully within the revenue parameters established by the budget resolution for fiscal year 2002. I would share and express some concern, however, with the provision in the bill that would exempt financial regulators from the SEC from the civil service pay scale. It is important that we consider the impact of this change on the Federal budget and its implications for other Federal agencies requesting comparable treatment. I would urge the Committee on Financial Services and the chairman to work with the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight during the conference to address this issue raised by the provision pay parity to prevent further and future adverse budgetary impact. I rise in support of this bill and urge its adoption.

Mr. NUSSLE

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman and all of those that have worked on this bill. It fits within the budget. It is a good product, and it is not an outrage. The minority leader said it is an outrage. If it is such an outrage, why will the majority party today be joined by as many as 40 Democrats who support this bill? If it is such an outrage, why will it be that at least 10 Democrats in the Senate will join with the majority party in support of this bill? If it is such an outrage, why is it that this is supported by the American people in great numbers across our country? Because they know, as we know, who should be spending the money in this country. This bill, I think, is a stark contrast between excuses and opportunities. What we just heard from the minority leader is a number of excuses, excuses that we have heard for a number of years as to why we cannot have a tax cut. I have heard so many times people say tax cutting is easy; I am for tax cuts; coming to the floor and cutting taxes is one of the easiest things we can do. Then why is it since World War II that we have only done it twice before? If it is so easy, why is it that this is only the third time that we have been able to have this kind of tax relief for the American people since the end of World War II? It is because it is not easy. It is difficult. Why is it difficult? Because there are so many excuses for why people cannot have their resources back and why the government should be spending that money itself. What are some of those excuses that we have been hearing? The number one excuse was we cannot provide tax relief to the American people because it dips into Social Security. For one of the first times we have a budget that says we are not touching any of Social Security. This tax bill fits within that budget. We do not touch Social Security. We will not touch Social Security. That was a bipartisan decision. I hope that that holds, and it fits within this budget. The second is that we should not do it because it touches Medicare. The minority leader said that this bill touches Medicare. That could not be farther from the truth. It does not touch Medicare. It should not touch Medicare. It will not touch Medicare. That also was a bipartisan agreement, and we should continue that practice here today. The third excuse was we should pay down the national debt first. In fact, this budget accomplishes the largest reduction of the debt held by the public in our history. This bill does not change that in one way, shape or form; and by the end of the 10 years of this budget we will have eliminated the debt held by the public, except for that which is needed for the cash flow. We have heard this is for the rich, and the minority leader mistakenly said 36 percent of the relief goes to the top 1 percent. Could not be farther from the truth; could not be farther from the truth. Read the distribution tables. Of course, that is a little hard to do, but, in fact, that is not the case. We have heard it is the wrong time, the wrong way. It is the wrong process. We have heard it is too dark at night. We have heard every excuse in the book, except for the one that really matters, and that is the opportunity that this gives to the American people itself. The real issue here today is who should spend the money. Do we believe that individuals and families make the best decisions about how to spend their money, or do we believe government is in the best position to do so? The special interests that we heard from the minority leader are in this bill. Want to hear what they are? People who are married, people who have children, people who are worried about the education of those kids, people who are worried about their small business and farms, and people who are worried about more and more money that goes to Washington that is not available to pay for higher energy bills, higher college costs and higher expenses. Vote for this bill. It fits within the budget.

Mr. NUSSLE

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.