Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today on National Adoption Day, I rise to introduce the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act along with my colleagues Senators Landrieu, Craig, Bingaman, Inhofe and Smith. The primary focus of this bill is to streamline, simplify and improve the foreign adoption process for families, adoption agencies and more importantly for the foreign adopted children of American citizens. In the last decade, there has been a significant growth in intercountry adoption. In 1990, Americans adopted more than 7,000 children from abroad. In 2002, Americans adopted almost 20,000 children from abroad. Families are increasingly seeking to create or enlarge their families through intercountry adoptions. There are many children worldwide who are without permanent homes. It is the intent of this bill to make much-needed reforms to the intercountry adoption process used by U.S. citizens and therefore help more homeless children worldwide find a permanent home here in the United States. There are two main goals of this legislation. First, and more importantly, this bill acknowledges and affirms that foreign adopted children of American citizens are to be treated in all respects the same as children born abroad to an American citizen. Under existing law, foreign adopted children are treated as immigrants to the United States. They have to apply for, and be granted immigrant visas to enter the United States. Once they enter the United States, citizenship is acquired automatically. Had these children been born abroad to American citizens, they would have traveled back to the United States with a U.S. passport and entered as citizens. This bill provides for equal treatment for foreign adopted children. Furthermore, these children are not immigrating to the United States in the traditional sense of the word. They are not choosing to come to our country, but rather American citizens are choosing to bring them here as part of their families. Once a full and final adoption has occurred, then the adopted child is a full-fledged member of the family and under adoption law is considered as if ``natural born.'' As a child of an American citizen, the foreign adopted child should be treated as such, not as an immigrant. The second goal is to consolidate the existing functions of the Federal Government relating to foreign adoption into one centralized office located within the Department of State. Currently, these functions are performed by offices within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State. Consolidation of these functions into one office will result in focused attention on the needs of families seeking to adopt overseas and on the children they are hoping to make part of their families. Today, when a family seeks to adopt overseas, it has to first be approved to adopt by the Department of Homeland Security. Then, after a child has been chosen, the Department of Homeland Security has to determine if the child is adoptable under Federal adoption law. After this determination is made, the Department of State has to determine whether the child qualifies for a visa as an immediate relative of an American citizen. This bill seeks to minimize the paperwork involved and streamline the process by having these functions all performed in one, centralized office, the Office of Intercountry Adoptions, staffed by expert personnel trained in adoption practices. The focus of this office will be on foreign adoptions and only on foreign adoptions. Officials in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State that currently perform the functions being transferred to this new office have many other duties, such as screening for terrorists or dealing with illegal immigrants. Adoption is frequently a low priority on the desk of such officers. By consolidating these functions into one office, with its sole focus being foreign adoption, these issues can be handled more promptly and given the priority they deserve. Another aspect of the Office of Intercountry Adoptions that I consider extremely important is the proactive role that we intend for it to take in assisting other countries in establishing fraud-free, transparent adoption practices and interceding on behalf of American citizens when foreign adoption issues occur. By establishing an Ambassador at Large for Intercountry Adoption, this legislation will provide a point of contact for foreign governments when issues involving foreign adoptions arise. In the last few years there have been many examples of instances where our government has had to intercede on behalf of Americans seeking to adopt a foreign child. For example, Romania has been closed to foreign adoption for more than 2 years now. When Romania issued its moratorium on foreign adoption, hundreds of American families who were in the process of adopting Romanian orphans were unable to complete their adoptions. Fortunately, the Department of State was able to work successfully with the Romanian government to have these adoptions processed and persuaded Romania to grant exceptions to the moratorium for these American families and their adopted. Unfortunately, the moratorium is still in place leaving many orphans stuck in orphanages across Romania. There also have been major adoption issues involving Cambodia, Vietnam, and Guatemala in the last 2 years. These issues are still being addressed by various officials within the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security. It will be greatly beneficial to have a point person within the Federal Government to work on these issues, facilitate resolutions, and intercede on behalf of American families. There also are some very significant procedural changes in the foreign adoption process included in this bill. Under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, a foreign child adopted by a U.S. citizen acquires automatic citizenship upon entry into the United States to reside permanently. This bill proposes to change the point of acquisition of citizenship from entry into the United States to the time when a full and final adoption decree is entered by a foreign government or a court in the United States. Prior to citizenship attaching, the child must be determined to be an ``adoption child'' under U.S. law as defined in this bill. This provision is made retroactive to January 1, 1950, the year Americans began to adopt from abroad. This date also addresses the issue of children adopted during this time period whose parents failed to naturalize them under previous law. Additionally, the Secretary of State shall issue a U.S. passport and a Consular Report of Birth for a child who satisfies the requirements of the Child Citizenship Act as amended by this Act. No visa will be required for such a child; instead it will be admitted to the United States upon presentation of a valid U.S. passport. No affidavit of support under 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act will be required nor will the child be required to undergo a medical exam. These changes are again made to more closely equate the process of bringing a foreign adopted child home to the process of documenting and bringing home a biological child born abroad to a U.S. citizen. When a U.S. citizen gives birth abroad, the parents simply go to the U.S. Embassy, present the child's birth certificate, their marriage license and proof of U.S. citizenship. Upon receiving this documentation, the embassy provides the parents with a U.S. passport for the child and a Consular Report of Birth that serves as proof of their child's citizenship as well as the child's birth certificate. This process takes little to no time to complete. The process for foreign adopted children, however, is anything but quick and easy. Currently, an adoptive family may have to travel from the country where it adopts a child to another country in order to get the child's immigrant visa. Only certain embassies are able to grant such visas. On the other hand, most embassies are equipped to provide passports and Consular Reports of Birth. This will eliminate the need and expense associated with families having to travel with their newly adopted children to another U.S. Embassy in a different location prior to bringing the children home. This bill also provides that the adoptive parents do not have to prove twice that they are financially capable of providing for their child and eliminates the immigration requirement of having the child undergo a medical exam. Before a family is approved to adopt a foreign child, the Federal Government has to be satisfied that the family is financially able to care for the child. This is part of the approval process. They should not have to repeat this process once they have fully and finally adopted a child. In addition, prior to a family choosing to adopt a child, they should acquire and be provided as much medical information as is available on the health of the child so that it can make an informed decision on its ability to care for the child. Once that information has been provided and the child has been adopted, the child is now a member of the family. No biological child is denied entry because of medical reasons, nor should an adopted child be denied. Another section of this bill provides for a new type of visa for children traveling to the United States for the purpose of being adopted by an American citizen who has been approved to adopt. Currently children who are not adopted overseas prior to their entry into the United States are allowed entry using an immigrant visa. As I have stated earlier, these children are not immigrants. They are being brought to the United States, at the request of a U.S. citizen, to become a member of that family. This new visa is a non-immigrant visa which authorizes admission of the child for the purposes of adoption. The authorized admission under this section terminates on the date the adoption is finalized, or 2 years after the date of admission if the adoption has not been finalized. Until the child is adopted, the child will receive temporary treatment as a legal permanent resident. This bill also redefines the criteria used to determine a child's eligibility for adoption This is a critical piece of this legislation. The existing statutory language has not been revised since it was first written over 50 years ago. When it was written it was intended to deal primarily with war orphans and it does not permit voluntary relinquishment of children who have two living parents. The provision in this bill has been written to more fully comport with the language as agreed to in the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 which does permit the adoption of children whose parents have irrevocably relinquished them. The bill also includes many safeguards such as: requirements that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proper care will be furnished the child; that the purpose of the adoption is to form a bona fide parent-child relationship; that the biological parent-child relationships have been terminated; that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is satisfied that the child is not a security risk; and that whose adoption and emigration to the United States has been approved by the competent authority of the country of the child's place of birth or residence. Now that I have covered some of the significant aspects of this bill, let me tell you what this bill does not do. It does not create more bureaucracy or additional regulation. It does not increase fees for adoption. It does not slow down the adoption process. It does not add more red tape or additional paperwork. In fact, it does just the opposite. It consolidates existing Federal processes for foreign adoptions into what is intended to be a ``one stop shop''--the Office of Intercountry Adoptions. It eliminates paperwork involved in getting an immigrant visa and provides citizenship documentation up front for the child, saving the adoptive family from having to deal with this upon its return home. Instead the fully and finally adopted child enters the United States on a U.S. passport as a U.S. citizen and child of a U.S. citizen. This bill is intended to ease the paperwork burden on adoptive parents who have already gone through extensive paperwork and documentation production to accomplish their adoption. It is intended to recognize that children adopted by American citizens are the children of American citizens and entitled to all the same rights, duties and responsibilities of biological children of U.S. citizens born abroad. I introduce this bill with the hope that its passage will significantly improve the foreign adoption process so that more children worldwide can find loving, permanent homes. It is my prayer that someday, adoption will not be needed. That all children will be born into stable, loving homes to parents who want them and are able to care for them. However, until that day comes the foreign adoption process can be improved and should be improved. Foreign adopted children should be treated as children of U.S. citizens, not as immigrants, and should be accorded all the same rights as biological children of U.S. citizens. To that end, I introduce this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2004 budget through November 19, 2003. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2004 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, H. Con. Res. 95, as adjusted. The estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $7.0 billion in budget authority and by $11.1 billion in outlays in 2004. Current level for revenues is $57 million below the budget resolution in 2004. Since my last report, dated November 11, 2003, the Congress has cleared for the President's signature the following acts that changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues for 2004: the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004, H.R. 1588; the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2004, H.R. 2559; the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004, H.R. 2754; and, the District of Columbia Military Retirement Equity Act of 2003, H.R. 3054. I ask unanimous consent that the budget scorekeeping report be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Twenty or thirty minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment Senator Domenici, the chairman of the committee. He stated at the beginning of the year that he was going to produce a very comprehensive Energy bill, and he has done it. I have been in the Senate for 23 years. I have been on the Energy Committee with Senator Domenici for 23 years. This is the most comprehensive piece of energy legislation we have had in that entire time. We have had a lot of people say we need a comprehensive bill, but until now, that hasn't happened. A couple of years ago, there was an Energy bill on the Senate floor, but the Energy Committee didn't have a markup. Senator Domenici, as chairman, decided that wasn't the way to go. He rightly felt the entire Energy Committee should be involved in marking up this bill. We marked it up over a period of months, and took several weeks in committee to report it out. For this open and inclusive committee process I compliment Senator Domenici for his methodology in reporting out this legislation which helped insure a solid and bipartisan product. I know he has been criticized for the way the Conference process, but he did allow the committee to work its will, and now we have brought back a very comprehensive piece of legislation to the Senate floor. I tell my very good friend from New Mexico that I agree with a lot that is in the bill. But I disagree with some of the things in the bill. I am going to support the bill on the whole because I think positive energy legislation is very critical if we want to have a growing economy. You cannot have a growing economy if you do not have viable, sustainable and reasonably priced sources of energy. It is very important that we pass a good bill. I would like to share with my colleagues that I ran for the Senate back in 1980 because of misguided energy policy that passed the Congress during the Carter administration which I found personally infuriating. In the midst of an energy crisis, the Carter administration proposed and passed, under a Democratic controlled Congress, several energy measures at that time which only served to worsen the energy related problems afflicting our nation. As a business man living in Ponca City, OK, I thought: What in the world is Congress doing? Everything they were doing, in my opinion, was very shortsighted. Maybe they had good, laudable goals, but they were very shortsighted if you happen to believe in free market principles. The one bill they passed that probably had more to do with me running for the Senate than anything was the windfall profits tax, which Congress passed in 1980. I was a State senator who happened to believe in free markets. The knowledge that my government would pass a law which so disincentivised the production of the very commodity we were most in need of at that time led me to conclude these people were completely out of touch with reality. Then Congress passed a bill that said we are going to tax domestic production, but we do not tax imports. The net impact of that is you discourage domestic production and you encourage imports. That was about as anti-free enterprise as any piece of legislation I could conceive. I was so irritated that I ran for office, and ended up serving in the Senate. I might mention that one of the highlights of my legislative career was when we repealed the windfall profits tax in 1988. Frankly, I was embarrassed it took so long to get it repealed. I introduced legislation every year I was in the Senate to repeal the windfall profits tax. We didn't get it repealed until after it robbed the taxpayers of $79 billion, but we got it repealed. We repealed several other pieces of the mistaken energy policy of the Carter era. In a short sighted attempt to artificially incentivise renewables while ignoring market principals the fuel use tax said you couldn't burn natural gas in utilities and big powerplants. It passed in 1978. We repealed it in 1987. The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 had dozens of different class categories for natural gas. I was pleased to be the principal cosponsor of the 1987 legislation to basically deregulate natural gas. That was a very significant piece of legislation that some people had worked on for decades, and we were finally able to get it through. I might mention that at that time Bennett Johnson was chairman of the committee. He and Wendell Ford worked in bipartisan ways to basically deregulate natural gas. I also might tell my colleagues that many people on this floor and many people who have not retired from this Senate said if we do deregulate natural gas, terrible things will happen; natural gas prices will explode. They did just the opposite. Gas prices went down. Oil prices went down after we deregulated oil. Also, during the Carter administration they passed the bill creating the Synthetic Fuels Corporation to subsidize the creation of synthetic fuel from coal and shale oil. That was passed in 1980, and it expired-- thank goodness--I believe in the 1986, but not before it wasted billions of the taxpayers dollars. It is important that we not pass bad legislation. But it is very important that we pass energy legislation. We are far too dependent on unreliable sources that can choke and strangle our economy. We have seen that happen in 1993. We have seen it happen in other years. We can't allow that to happen. We have become far too dependent on foreign oil. We import over 50 percent, and it is growing towards about two- thirds dependency on foreign oil. That is not acceptable. What can and could and should be done? The bill that we have before us has a blend of a lot of things. It encourages production and it encourages conservation. It also does a couple of other things--talking about some fixes on the books that need to be replaced. It reforms PURPA, the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act. I believe that passed in 1978 as well. We are finally going to repeal it. That required utilities to pay for avoided costs for energy and basically increased utility prices, in many cases by--I was going to say hundreds of millions of dollars. It might be hundreds of millions of dollars for one powerplant over the life of that powerplant or those contracts. I compliment Senator Landrieu who worked with me on that. If there is competition, we will repeal it. I appreciate her work. We are also finally getting rid of PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This passed in the 1930s. Maybe it made sense in the 1930s. It makes no sense, and, frankly, it hasn't made sense for the last couple of decades. We are finally going to get rid of it. By getting rid of that, we will open up, frankly, investment for utilities and energy projects in the billions of dollars. It received almost no attention and no debate. But anybody who has looked at it--it has been mentioned by, I think, everybody from Alan Greenspan to many of the regulators--said get rid of PUHCA. We are finally going to get rid of that regulatory maze that is long overdue. It is also notable to see what we didn't do in the bill that many of our friends, primarily on the other side of the aisle, wanted to put in this bill. We don't have renewable portfolio standards. If we did, the price of electricity would go up dramatically all across the country. They tried to do it even in the markup earlier this week. We were successful in defeating that. That is a real win for consumers. They forgot to tell you that if you had the renewable portfolio standards of 10 percent, if you do not meet the standard, there is tax. It says you have to pay a tax of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour--about 50 percent of the wholesale price of electricity, if you do not meet this standard. That means if you don't make 10 percent, you could have your electricity prices go up by 5 or 10 percent. We defeated that. We defeated a very onerous corporate average fuel economy standard that people wanted to enact. It would have mandated automobiles to average 40 miles per gallon. That would have eviscerated consumer choice and resulted in our citizens being forced to buy an economy- sized automobile which could prove very unsafe. It would have been a very expensive provision as well in terms of consumer costs and lost jobs in our auto industry. We didn't do that. We didn't put in the global warming provision that would have greatly increased every person's utility costs, devastated our economy and would have made us uncompetitive internationally. We didn't do those things. I am pleased about that. We did do some positive electricity provisions that will encourage regional transmission organizations, that will mandate reliability standards which will help us avoid curtailment in the future. It is not fail-safe, but it certainly is a positive step in the right direction. Senator Domenici mentioned several other things in the nuclear field and other provisions in coal that should help us broaden and diversify our energy sources. He mentioned the tax provisions. I voted against the tax portion of this bill when it came out of the Finance Committee. If we were voting on the tax portion of this bill standing alone, I would vote against it now. On the tax provisions, the administration requested $8 billion. The Senate Finance Committee reported out $15 billion, and this bill is $23.5 billion.

Mr. NICKLES. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. To answer my colleague's question, the budget points of order lie against the spending, and I expect the tax provisions as well.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we scored in the budget, I believe, $18 billion for this bill. This bill will score close to $30 billion, for the information of the Senator. It scores that way for a couple of reasons. One, the tax provision. Also, there is a provision that says brownfield projects can be funded by bonds that cost about $2 billion, which I think is a terrible way to be financing projects. This is not an appropriations bill. Senator Domenici also mentioned a lot of things are authorized. I hope and pray not everything will be spent that is authorized. I will tell my colleagues that is always the case. We authorize a lot more money than we appropriate, and thank goodness for that. I'll mention just a couple of other things. There is also direct spending in this bill. I tell my friend from New Hampshire that this Senator, at least, questions the wisdom of doing it. By direct spending there are new entitlements for two or three items that are created. Coastal impact has an estimated cost of $1 billion. I predict it will cost a lot more than $1 billion over the next 10 years. I am sympathetic with those who live on the coast and they have drilling offshore and say they do not get anything. That money goes into general revenue. It should be subject to appropriation. The coastal State should receive some consideration, maybe some compensation. But to have it set up as an entitlement for 10 years and then subject to appropriation is a very poor manner of doing it. There is deepwater research, $150 million that is direct entitlement spending for the next 10 years. Again, I don't think that is the way this committee should operate. This is not an Appropriations Committee. The same thing for Denali. They get about $500 million over the 10 years. That is $3 billion of direct or entitlement spending that, frankly, should not be in this bill. Let me touch on a couple of other things that are in the bill that are critically important, and at least in my opinion, if you add this together, make the bill worthwhile. One is the Alaska natural gas pipeline. If you go back historically and read the debates that occurred in this Congress, this Senate, for the Alaska oil pipeline, it was one of the most contentious issues this body had seen in a long time. This Alaska gas pipeline could have been as contentious, but it is not. It is in this bill. It is a $20 billion project, maybe the largest project in the United States in our history, certainly one of the largest projects ever. It is in this bill with expedited procedures which make that pipeline viable, in my opinion. We also have a provision that allows the pipeline to be amortized over a shorter period of time, 7 years. That will encourage the construction of the pipeline. That is jobs. That is energy. We have a very significant serious natural gas challenge or shortage or potential shortage and deliverability shortage, getting the product to the consumers in the next several years. Getting this gas that basically is stuck in the northern plains of Alaska to the lower 48 will help alleviate that shortage to the tune of trillions of cubic feet of gas. It is absurd to leave that gas in Alaska, in northern Alaska, untapped, unutilized. This bill will authorize and expedite the construction of that pipeline. That, to me, is probably the best thing we have in this bill, the most pro-energy item in the bill. We also have some other things that make good sense, that do encourage production. I compliment our colleagues for putting those in the bill. On balance, we need an energy package. The administration should be complimented for the fact that Vice President Cheney led a task force and recommended many of these things. They are now in this bill. He has taken a lot of heat for it but, frankly, this country for decades has needed a comprehensive energy package. Vice President Cheney and President Bush have led the effort to make that happen. Now we are within a day or so of actually passing a bill to do that. While this bill is far from perfect, while this bill actually does cost too much, while the tax provisions in this bill are far too numerous, in this Senator's opinion, with way too many tax credits--I believe there are 19 new tax credits in the code, and I hate to see the Tax Code cluttered and confused and complicated, substituting the wisdom of tax writers over the free market--I still think on balance the country needs a bill, needs an energy package. I believe this is the best one that this Congress can write, at least at this time. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will also be speaking later. I want to make a couple of comments after presiding and listening to some of the speeches made a moment ago. I think it is important to maybe give a couple of viewpoints about the positions of the Senate. I have had the pleasure of being in the Senate for 23 years. I plan on serving 1 more year in the Senate. I have had a lot of great experiences, a lot of high points and low points. One of the lower points is the way judges have been treated in the last 2 years. In my previous 21 years, we never had a filibuster on a judge, and I never heard colleagues say, Wait a minute, President Clinton had nominees and they weren't considered. Most of those who were on the list he nominated very late in the last year of his term of office. One of them was from Oklahoma, and the two Senators from Oklahoma were never even consulted. That name was on the list. So there is a difference between being nominated, going through the process--particularly with district court judges--consulting the home State Senators. That is the tradition of the Senate. One of the things that bothers me is we are breaking the tradition of the Senate by saying now you have to have a supermajority, particularly on the appellate court level. I don't know that that has happened on district court, and I am glad. We have confirmed a lot of district court judges and I am glad. But when it comes to circuit court, the next higher level, it may be a higher standard and all of a sudden now, the standard for those judges appears to be 60 votes. That is evident by the fact of four having been filibustered and there are another two who will be filibustered in the process. We will find out tomorrow. Another of the traditions that has been trampled upon is what people are saying and how they are saying it. We had a speaker just recently who mentioned two Senators by name and kept using the words ``sanctimonious hypocrisy.'' That is in violation, in the opinion of this Senator, of rule XIX of the Senate. We have rules. And we have rules for a purpose. Those rules should be adhered to. When Senators violate the rules, I think they undermine maybe to some extent the dignity and esteem of the Senate. These rules have a purpose. Rule XIX says: No Senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words impute to another Senator or other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator. That rule is there for a purpose. It is gradually being ignored in debate, time and time again, by some Members--not by most Members, by an occasional Member. I am giving a warning to Members, if they violate this rule, I am going to call it on them and I am going to ask the Parliamentarian if their comments are a violation of rule XIX. And if they are in violation, they will be seated. It will take an actual vote for them to be allowed to participate in debate again. It is not right to be coming down mentioning Senators by name and using words such as ``sanctimonious hypocrisy'' and impugning a Senator's motives. That is in violation of the rules. People ought to know the rules. Maybe if we would abide by the rules, we would have a higher level of debate, greater civility, and maybe greater understanding of some of the challenges we have before us today. Let me just make one other comment about there were some judges who are maybe left in the queue. President Clinton had a bunch of judges left in the queue. I had a judge who was left in the queue at the end of Bush 1's administration. His name was Frank Keating and he ran out of time. That is one of the traditions of the Senate. When people are nominated in the last year or the last few months of an administration, a lot of times they don't get confirmed. That is not a filibuster. Some people were equating that to a filibuster. It is not. There has not been a filibuster of a judge in my term--actually in the history of the Senate--until this year, on four individuals, and now we are going to find it on a couple of additional judges. One other comment. My very good friend from Louisiana said her father was a Catholic judge, and God bless him. I am concerned that there is a religious litmus test coming. Maybe we can confirm Catholics, but if they happen to be pro-life Catholics--I don't know if her dad is a pro- life Catholic or not. I hope he is. I don't know. That is his business. I usually don't ask the nominees I am recommending or the President is considering--I usually don't ask them their position on that issue. But my guess is if someone is known to be a pro-life Catholic, they cannot get through this litmus test for appellate court judges that many are using today, and I think that is very regrettable. Maybe if they happen to be pro-life Southern Baptists or pro-life Mormons or pro-life Jews, I am not sure they can get through this new litmus test now being put on us by the Judiciary Committee and, unfortunately, by the minority in the Senate. I think that is very regrettable and we need to change that. Our colleagues on the other side need to realize at some point, someday, they will regain the majority. They need to be thinking about what that means for the long term. I cannot imagine they assume we are going to have a 60-vote litmus test or a 60-vote margin or hurdle for confirmation of judges during Republicans but that is not going to happen at some point when Democrats might occupy the White House. I think this raising the bar to 60 votes--I happen to believe it probably is unconstitutional, but I also happen to believe they are setting a precedent that they likewise will regret. So I hope maybe more mature minds will be thinking about this on the Democrat side and say, wait a minute, shouldn't we really give somebody such as Miguel Estrada a vote?

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield to my very good friend from Kentucky.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I commend the Senators from Arizona and Virginia for their leadership on this important issue. When the Air Force's original proposal to lease 100 tankers looked like a done deal a couple of months ago, both of these Senators stood up and made us consider the proposal in ways that we likely would not have, but for their commitment for the interests of both the warfighter and the taxpayer. In so doing, we now have before us, among other things, Section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. As I understand this provision, the Air Force will be authorized to use the special non-confirming lease methodology to lease no more than 20 tankers, and buy the balance, not to exceed 80, under a multiyear procurement/incremental funding methodology.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator's rationale for agreeing to this compromise, whereby the total number of tankers to be leased was reduced by 80 percent, relied on the Congressional Budget Office's conclusion that the fewer planes that the Air Force leased, the greater the savings to taxpayers.

Mr. NICKLES. I understand that the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that if the Air Force implements the compromise by acquiring the tankers under two separate contracts, gets budget authority at the time it orders its planes, and pays progress payments, taxpayers will see $5.3 billion in savings over the Air Force's original proposal to lease 100 tankers.

Mr. NICKLES. I agree. If the Defense Department proceeds accordingly, namely under the current contact, it will be attempting to meet its priorities through very many of the same convoluted means that were proposed under the original agreement--means that would cost more than necessary, thereby further increasing the deficit to unnecessarily high levels. Unfortunately, in the absence of a guarantee from the Defense Department that it will not implement Section 135 as suggested by the Defense Deputy Secretary's letter of November 5, 2003 and the recent colloquy in the House, I share your concern. Additionally I want to reinforce your statement that it is not the intention of Congress, nor does this legislation reflect an agreement for the Air Force Secretary to implement the current contract on acquiring 100 tankers. We have heard testimony and the Institute of Defense Analysis has reported, and I quote, ``We believe that the $120.7 million is a conservative, robust estimate of a reasonable purchase price for the KC-767A aircraft . . . and . . . should satisfy Boeing and its shareholders.'' We should not agree to a purchase price of $138.4 million which is significantly higher, because it includes lease unique costs. I take the opportunity to highlight for our colleagues that the Congressional Budget Office has scored this transaction as an $18 billion direct purchase, requiring full budget authority up front. Ordinarily, under these circumstances, I would make a budgetary point of order. I will not raise that point of order now. But, what I will do is call upon the Secretary of Defense to implement the compromise provision in a way that accurately reflects the intent of the conference--acquire its tankers for the Air Force in a way that maximizes savings to taxpayers. It is anomalous that the Congress would have intended to have taxpayers see only half the savings and not touch the $6.4 billion maintenance and training contract--a contract that was never competed for. In the spirit of compromise, under Section 135, the Congress has provided the Department with tools to acquire the tankers responsibly and in a way that protects the interests of taxpayers. At the end of the day, whatever legislation comes out of this body, the administration is responsible for implementing it as the Congress intended. After months of investigation, inquiry and debate, there can be little doubt that the intent here is to best protect the interests of the taxpayer.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the conference report to accompany H.R. 2559, the 2004 Military Construction appropriations bill, provides $9.4 billion in discretionary budget authority and $10.3 billion in discretionary outlays in fiscal year 2004 for Military Construction and Family Housing appropriations. The $10.3 billion in outlays includes outlays from previously enacted legislation. The bill is $112 million in budget authority and $38 million in outlays above the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. These totals result from the $112 million in non-emergency funds enacted in P.L. 108-106, the 2004 Iraq supplemental, that count against the bill's 302(b) allocation. The bill provides $193 million more in budget authority and $15 million more in outlays than the President's budget request. The bill provides $1.3 billion in budget authority less and $226 million in outlays more than the 2003 enacted level. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering H.R. 2861, the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2004, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The pending bill provides $91.334 billion in total budget authority and $96.549 billion in total outlays for Fiscal Year 2004 and within the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. For discretionary spending the Senate bill is at the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority and below the allocation by $.018 billion or .02 percent in outlays. The Senate bill is $1.699 billion or 1.8 percent in BA and $.708 billion or .7 percent in outlays above the President's budget request. The pending bill funds the programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, Corporation for National and Community Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation and several other agencies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2004 budget through November 7, 2003. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2004 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, H. Con. Res. 95, as adjusted. The estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $11.7 billion in budget authority and by $13.1 billion in outlays in 2004. Current level for revenues is $62 million below the budget resolution in 2004. Since my last report, dated November 4, 2003, the Congress has cleared and the President has signed the following acts that changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues for 2004: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, Public Law 108-106; and, An act making further continuing appropriations for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-107. In addition the Congress has cleared for the President's signature the following acts: Interior Appropriations Act, 2004, H.R. 2691; an act to reauthorize certain school lunch and child nutrition programs, H.R. 3232; and, Military Family Tax Relief Act of 2003, H.R. 3365. I ask unanimous consent to print the following related information in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Chairman and the Ranking Member for bringing the Senate a carefully crafted spending bill within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and consistent with the discretionary spending cap for 2004. The Senate reported bill provides $17.0 billion in discretionary budget authority and $17.6 billion in discretionary outlays for fiscal year 2004 for the Department of Agriculture. This is 8.5 percent less than last year in discretionary budget authority and 1.6 percent less than last year in discretionary outlays. This bill also provides $55.5 billion in mandatory budget authority and $39.5 billion in mandatory outlays in fiscal year 2004 for the Department of Agriculture. The Senate reported bill is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority and $171 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. The bill provides $1.57 billion less in budget authority and $279 million less in outlays than the FY 2003 level and $22 million more in BA and $96 million less in outlays than the President's request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Chairman Bennett faces many difficult funding decisions as he puts together this year's bill. I appreciate the work he has done in a challenging job. I rise today regarding the United States Department of Agriculture Southern Plains Range Research Station in Woodward, OK. As you know, the Agricultural Research Service is currently undergoing a facility modernization at the Southern Plains Range Research Station in Woodward. I submitted a request for Phase II funding to allow the ARS to complete construction of the facility and begin realizing the benefits that this facility will bring to both the ARS and the Woodward community. The Research Station provides economic opportunities for the citizens of Woodward, OK and contributes to USDA's mission of building a competitive agriculture economy while enhancing the natural resources base in the Southern Plains. This funding is necessary to implement the recommendations of the recent ARS review of facility needs at SPRRS: construction of a new greenhouse, a new laboratory, an office building, and new parking structures and site upgrades. According to USDA, ``The [SPRRS] laboratories are in dire need of repair and renovation.'' This modernization is necessary for SPRRS to employ cutting-edge techniques and procedures in rangeland and pasture research. It is my hope that you will work with me to provide the funds necessary to complete construction at the USDA Southern Plains Range Research Station in Woodward, OK.

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the difficult challenges that the Chairman is facing as he puts together the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill. I thank him for his attention to this very important need and for his willingness to work with me to address this issue.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2004 budget through October 31, 2003. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2004 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, H. Con. Res. 95, as adjusted. The estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $14.6 billion in budget authority and by $14 billion in outlays in 2004. Current level for revenues is $108 million above the budget resolution in 2004. Since my last report, dated October 14, 2003, the Congress has cleared and the President has signed the following acts that changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues for 2004: An act making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2004 (H.J. Res. 75); Check Clearing Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 108-100); and, an act to amend Title 44, U.S.C. (P.L. 108-102). In addition the Congress has cleared for the President's signature the following acts: Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 (S. 3); and, an act to amend Title XXI, of the Social Security Act (H.R. 3288). I ask unanimous consent that a transmittal letter from CBO and report be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report of the FY 2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. I commend the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for bringing the Senate a carefully crafted spending bill within the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and consistent with the discretionary spending cap for 2004. The pending bill provides $19.7 billion in discretionary budget authority and $19.4 billion in discretionary outlays in FY 2004 for the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, energy conservation and research, the Smithsonian and the National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for Humanities. The bill is at the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. The bill provides $185 million or 0.9 percent more in discretionary budget authority and $1.1 billion or 5.9 percent more in discretionary outlays than last years bill. The bill provides $72 million more in discretionary budget authority and $93 million more in discretionary outlays than the President's budget request. In addition, this bill provides $400 million in emergency funding for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior for wildland fire suppression activities. These funds were requested by the President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, S. 1426, the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for 2004, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $18.1 billion in discretionary budget authority and $20.3 billion in discretionary outlays in fiscal year 2004 for Foreign Operations appropriations. This bill contains about two-thirds of total international affairs spending in the budget. The bill funds U.S. Export and Investment Assistance, Bilateral Economic Assistance, Military Assistance, and Multilateral Economic Assistance. The bill equals the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority and is $9 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. The bill provides $796 million less in budget authority and $713 million less in outlays than the President's budget request. The bill provides $5.6 billion in budget authority less and $148 million in outlays more than the 2003 enacted level including 2003 supplemental appropriations. Excluding those supplemental appropriations, the bill provides a $1.866 billion increase over last year, or 11.5 percent. I am concerned about a proposed amendment that would add funds for Global HIV/AIDs programs without providing an offset within the bill. Any amendments that add funding without offsets will have a budget act violation and I will not be able to support them. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in the time since major combat in Iraq has ended and peacekeeping and transitional operations have begun, the United States, our allies and the Iraqi people have accomplished much. The men and women of our armed forces in particular deserve much praise for their diligence and bravery. They have been given the goal of establishing democracy in Iraq, and their success in this endeavor is directly linked to the freedom and security we enjoy in the homeland. A free and democratic Iraq will stand as a beacon of hope amidst one of the world's most troubled regions. Fortunately we are now seeing many of the fruits of their labor. Nearly 760,000 metric tons of food items have been dispatched into Iraq in just one month's time. Health care centers are receiving shipments of health care kits, refrigerators and furniture. Shipments of office supplies including furniture, computers and printers have been received in Iraq and will be used to equip seven essential government ministries. The Iraqi people are stepping up to provide leadership for their newly liberated country. Crops are being successfully planted in areas that have not produced for years. Iraqis are volunteering for the new Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Nurses Association has initiated a two-day conference to lay the ground work for adequate nursing services in Iraq over the next ten years and close to 30,000 Iraqis have undergone training to be members of Iraq's new police force. More importantly, representative democracy in Iraq has taken shape. The Iraqi Governing Council has been formed and brings together 25 political leaders from across Iraq. The Council will name Iraqi Ministers, represent the new country internationally, and draft a constitution that will pave the way for national elections leading to a fully sovereign Iraqi government. Recently, we have confirmed that Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay have been killed in a firefight in Mosul. This development has led to an increase in tips from the Iraqi people, one of which led us the capture of 660 surface to air missiles, as well as an increasing confidence among the Iraqi people. With two thirds of the Hussein regime gone, one has reason to hope that the final piece of the puzzle will soon follow. And this good news that we are witnessing in Iraq is a direct result of the hard work and dedication of our troops. Were it not for their courage and perseverance, our presence in Iraq would be in vain. Our military men and women will surely face more difficult days in Iraq, and the Iraqi people will be tested by the responsibilities that come with freedom. The thugs who propped up the previous regime and outside forces with goals of their own continue to cause problems, stir up trouble and initiate violence. Freedom is messy--nowhere more so than in a country that has just shaken off a brutal dictatorship. Today I rise to honor a man who made the ultimate sacrifice one can make for his country. On August 23, Spec. Stephen M. Scott, 21, of Lawton, OK, died of noncombat-related injuries near Al Fallujah after being evacuated to the 28th Combat Support Hospital. His wife, Marie Scott remembers her husband as a gentle giant with a very affectionate personality. ``He was amazing,'' she said of Scott. ``He was 6-foot-5 and weighed 225 pounds, but was so gentle . . . If there was a little guy getting picked on he'd be the one to stand up for him.'' Spec. Scott died doing just that. His mission in Iraq was clear: to help the Iraqi people overthrow the shackles of a brutal dictatorship-- to help the little guy. As we watch the dawn of a new day in Iraq, let us never forget that the freedom we enjoy every day in America is bought at a price. Spec. Scott did not die in vain. He died so that many others could live freely. And for that sacrifice, we are forever indebted. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family today and with the troops who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I rise in support of S. 2989, the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Act for FY 2004, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. I commend the distinguished Chairman and the Ranking Member for bringing to the Senate a carefully crafted spending bill within the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. The pending bill provides $26.0 billion in general purpose discretionary budget authority, an $810 million decrease from FY2003. Including outlays from previously enacted legislation, the bill provides $33.4 billion in outlays, which represents a $1.9 billion increase from FY2003. These levels are at or below the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. For highways, including outlays from previously enacted legislation, $31.6 billion in discretionary outlays is provided, which is equal to the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. For transit, the bill provides $1.461 billion in BA and $6.632 billion in outlays including outlays from previously enacted legislation. Both BA and outlays are equal to or below the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. The pending bill provides $17.5 billion in mandatory budget authority and outlays, equal to the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.