Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I concur with my colleague, Senator Conrad. He is exactly right. The Senate can manage debate on the Senate resolution and conduct itself much better than we have in the past. Senator Conrad has been very helpful in making that happen. I think the debate we had today was a very good debate. We were expecting to yield back a lot of time. Frankly, we did not yield back much time because there was good, significant debate. We did not have prolonged quorum calls. We had a lot of speakers on both sides to present their views. I thank our colleagues for doing that.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, March 9. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and the pledge the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 95, the budget resolution; provided that when the Senate resumes consideration of the resolution tomorrow morning, there be 40 hours equally divided remaining for debate under the statutory limit.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, section 421 of H. Con. Res. 95, the 2004 Budget Resolution, requires the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make appropriate adjustments in the appropriate allocations and aggregates to reflect the difference between Public Law 108-11, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003--and the corresponding levels assumed in the resolution. As enacted, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003 contains budgetary authority, outlays and revenues that differ from those assumed in the budget resolution. On May 5, 2003, the allocations and aggregates were revised, but the discretionary caps were not appropriately adjusted to reflect the changes. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a table which reflects the revised discretionary caps for 2005. These revised caps are the appropriate levels to be used for enforcement of the 2004 Budget Resolution.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague and friend from Nevada for his statement. It is important that we create an environment to create jobs. We did that last year. We didn't have bipartisan support, with the exception of Senator Miller. But we passed a jobs bill last year. We passed a bill to help grow the economy. Guess what. It is working. We passed a bill last year that cut the tax on individuals about in half--15 percent. We passed a bill last year that cut the tax on capital gains from 20 to 15 percent. We passed a bill that reduced marginal rates; that took the rate from 27 percent, for example, and made it 25 percent. As a result of that, the economy is growing. With a rather stagnant economy, the stock market a year ago was less than 8,000; that is, the Dow Jones. It is over 10,500 today. The Nasdaq is over 50 percent. For the last three quarters, we now have significant economic growth. During the last two quarters, one quarter was 8 percent and the other quarter was 4.4 percent. We have had the most significant rapid expansion of job growth and economic growth in the last several months. In the last 6 months, according to the Wade survey, we have added about 300-some thousand jobs. If you look at the household survey, it is a couple of million jobs. The household survey includes self-employed, working at home on their computers, and so on. Also, I know this amendment says let us continue this Federal program. We have a State program of 26 weeks. We had a temporary Federal program for an additional 13 weeks. Many tried to make that a permanent program and many tried to double it. They weren't successful in doubling it. Now they are trying to make it permanent. They want to take a 13-week program that traditionally was temporary and usually phases out when the unemployment rate drops down. The unemployment rate has been dropping down. In 2003, it was 6.3 percent, and it has declined almost every month to 5.6 percent. We have had significant improvement in the number of jobs, and the unemployment rate is 5.6 percent. But I notice that the proponents of the amendment said: What about the early 1990s? In the early 1990s, we discontinued unemployment temporary assistance when the rate was 6.4 percent. Today, it is 5.6 percent--a full percentage point less than it was several years ago when we had this temporary program. Some people do not like the idea that it is a temporary program. They would like it to be a permanent program. It is not. A couple of other things: The number of unemployed is falling. If you go back to last year, it dropped from 9.2 million to 8.3 million--again, a significant improvement by almost a million. The number of Federal extended unemployment benefit claims has fallen dramatically as well. It is declining. That is because economic growth is going up. Yes. Sometimes there is a lag between economic growth and the number of new jobs created because you have a lot of inefficiency in the system. You have a more productive system. People are producing more with less, people are more efficient, and people are very productive. The productivity index has been skyrocketing. We have had a very productive, efficient workforce. So that is contributing. I want to make these points. We spent about $30 million in the last 36 months for this program. Again, some people would like it to continue forever. When you have a national unemployment rate of 5.6 percent--I don't know that we have had the Federal temporary unemployment assistance apply at a rate that low. I mention that. I also might mention that almost half the States have less than 5 percent unemployment. I used to be in manufacturing. When the unemployment rate was less than 5 percent, it was almost full employment. You are always going to have an unemployment rate. You are always going to have some people moving from job to job. With a dynamic economy, people basically transfer from job to job. Their job may be phased out, but they are going to another job. That is part of high tech. That is part of modernizing industry. This is part of keeping up. That is part of the dynamics of the marketplace which maybe a lot of people would like to replace. People change jobs. That is not all that unhealthy. Sometimes that next job is a better job. Sometimes that next job might have great growth potential. This program is a Federal temporary program, and it shouldn't be made permanent. To make it permanent will add $5.4 billion on to the deficit this year. The deficit this year is already over $500 billion, according to OMB. CBO is going to say it is less than that. I happen to agree with the Congressional Budget Office. If you have a deficit of 400-plus or 500-plus billion dollars, let us not add on another 5.4 billion on top of it for this year. Enough is enough. How long are we going to continue the program? Do we continue this program if the unemployment rate gets below 5 percent? There has to be a time when we say enough is enough. The current program is in the process of phasing out. When we passed the last bill, we avoided a cliff by December 30. If somebody was in the 13-week program by the end of December, they got the full Federal 13-week extension. We didn't have somebody automatically losing their benefit after 1 week on the Federal program. We also have a program for high unemployment States. That is a permanent Federal Extended Benefits program. Right now, Alaska qualifies for extended benefits. Nationally, they already get a 13-week Federal on top of the State 26 weeks. So Alaska already has 39 weeks. That is three-fourths of the year. We have to determine when is enough. I think we have crossed the line. There is a direct relationship--and the Senator from Nevada alluded to this--when we discontinue making extra payments, more people will find work. There is more incentive to get out and find that job, to make sure you get a job, to make sure you can take care of your family. Tradition has shown--and we saw this in the 1990s--when this program stopped in the 1990s, the unemployment rate declined by another percentage point because a lot of people went out and found jobs. In other words, the more you pay people not to work, the less inclined they are to work. There is a direct relationship. So we should, at some point, draw this program to a conclusion. We are saying keep the 26 week State program, keep the permanent Federal program for high unemployment States, those States that are really suffering through economic decline. But for the rest of the country, this is not called for. It is not affordable. It will be adding to the deficit. It is out of order as far as the budget is concerned. I will make a point of order on this but I withhold the vote until all time has expired on both sides. The pending amendment No. 2617 offered by the Senator from Washington increases direct spending in excess of the allocation to the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. NICKLES. I will reserve the point and see if additional Senators wish to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I want to make sure everyone is aware, when you talk about the State has money it has not utilized, are you referring to $8 billion Congress appropriated as part of the package in 2002?

Mr. NICKLES. There was $8 billion and there is still $4 billion on the table the States have not utilized for the unemployment compensation?

Mr. NICKLES. My colleague mentioned the Workforce Investment Act that passed unanimously through the Senate and for whatever reasons our colleagues on the minority side have not agreed to the appointment of conferees. This is a bill that would help train people to get jobs.

Mr. NICKLES. A further clarification. I find it totally unacceptable and I cannot imagine not agreeing to appointing conferees on a bill that will help get people trained to find jobs. Also, I make an editorial comment. There is way too much of that happening. Our colleagues should be advised, this not agreeing to appointment of conferees is a travesty on the Senate procedures. Maybe people think it is commonplace. It is not commonplace in the tradition of the Senate.

Mr. NICKLES. I am finding out more about this amendment, and the more I find out, the less I like it. The sponsor of the amendment has written it in a way that her State receives extra benefits that most States do not. So this is not a simple extension. It is a simple extension, except a few States will get additional high unemployment assistance. I am bewildered. I came to the floor and thought it was a simple extension. It is not. It rewrites the definition of high unemployment. It changes the criteria and benefits for the State of Washington, and a probably one or two other States. The State of Washington has money on the table that we have already appropriated that the State legislature has not used, as the Senator from Nevada alluded to. One final note. We discontinued the Federal temporary assistance program in the early 1990s when the unemployment rate was at 6.4 percent. The unemployment rate today is 5.6 percent. It is much lower. It is time to say, let's go back to the program that has permanent extended benefits only for high-unemployment States, not for every State.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the amendment No. 2617 offered by the Senator from Washington increases direct spending in excess of the allocation to the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, as we take time to celebrate President's Day and remember the contributions of two of our greatest leaders George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, I rise along with my colleagues Senator Landrieu and Senator Inhofe to introduce legislation that will guarantee children born to and adopted by American citizens the opportunity to become this country's next great president. The purpose of this bill is to define the term ``natural born Citizen'' as used in Article II of the Constitution to include any person born in the United States, any person born outside the United States to citizen parents, and any foreign-born child adopted by citizen parents. For many decades legal scholars have debated the meaning of the term ``natural born Citizen.'' There are many law review articles that examine the issue from every angle and come to several different conclusions. Some scholars, such as Pinkney G. McElwee in his article entitled Natural Born Citizen and Isidor Blum's article published in the New York Law School Journal, conclude that the term ``natural born'' is synonymous with ``native born.'' Others, such as Charles Gordon in the Maryland Law Review and Warren Freedman in the Cornell Law Quarterly, decide that the definition of ``natural born'' includes all people who are citizens at birth. And these scholars disagree as to who is a citizen at birth. The issue came to the public's attention when George Romney was seeking the Republican nomination for President in 1968. He was born of American missionary parents in Mexico. Some questioned his eligibility to be President under the Constitutional requirement that a President be a ``natural born citizen.'' The issue was never decided since Mr. Romney did not become the Republican nominee. Although at least two Federal court decisions have suggested what the term ``natural born citizen'' means, the issue has never been squarely resolved by a court. Today the question remains unanswered. This bill presents us with an historic opportunity. In this bill, we have the opportunity to end the uncertainty surrounding the qualifications for the presidency, and provide a fair and equal chance to children of American citizens to pursue their dreams. There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of a judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ``natural born'' means. This bill answers the need for clarification and gives certainty to our citizens whose children may be born abroad such as armed service members, foreign service members, expatriate families, and certainty to families that have adopted foreign born children, that their children, too, are eligible to seek the office of President of the United States. Part of the American dream is that any child of an American can grow up to be anything he or she wants to be including President of the United States. That it does not matter what your last name is, or how much property you own, or how wealthy you are. That the son or daughter of the humblest upbringing could one day lead this great country. This is why America is truly the land of opportunity. It should not matter if you are born to American parents in a foreign country or adopted by American parents from a foreign country. In either case, you are a child of America. This bill makes clear that a child born to American citizens abroad is eligible to hold the office of the presidency. The term ``natural born'' was used by the framers of the Constitution to reinforce their wish that the president would feel loyalty and allegiance to the United States. That the president would have a ``native feeling.'' Children born to American citizens abroad, especially those born to members of the American armed forces and foreign service, certainly have that ``native feeling.'' They are as patriotic as any American. Statutorily, they are citizens from birth, raised by Americans with American values. And they should have the same opportunities as children born on American soil. They should not be denied the chance to seek the highest office in our land because they happened to be born while their parents were stationed or working abroad. The Constitution also requires that the president have resided in the United States for fourteen years. This provision shows us that the framers believed that the president need not spend his whole life in the United States. It is possible for a person to reside in another country for a time and still be eligible to be President of the United States. So it follows that an American child born abroad should be just as eligible to be president just as any child born in the United States that happens to reside abroad for a time. This bill makes it clear that such a child is eligible to be president. This bill also makes clear that foreign born children adopted by American families will have the same opportunities as biological children of American citizens. All of the same arguments apply for foreign adopted children that apply for children born biologically to citizen parents abroad. These children are no less loyal to the United States. They are raised by Americans in America. They are not any less of a citizen than any other American. And they should be no less eligible to be president than any other American child. Furthermore, adoption law says that once a child is fully and finally adopted, they are entitled to the same rights, duties and responsibilities as biological children. They are to be treated as ``natural issue'' of their adoptive parents. All blood ties are severed from their biological families. As such, foreign adopted children living in America are treated as if born to their adoptive American parents. But there is one remaining difference. Without this bill, they will be unable to pursue the opportunity to run for President. Removal of this inequality is the last step needed to truly provide equality to the foreign adopted children of American citizens. In 1990, Americans adopted more than 7,000 children from abroad. By 2002, that number grew to more than 20,000 children. These children are members of American families, and should be treated as such. They should be allowed to have the same dreams as any other American child, including the dream that they, too, could grow up to be President of the United States. This bill makes sure they can. Foreign adopted children and children born to American citizens abroad are as invested in the well-being of this country as the rest of us. These children grow up with the benefits of being an American citizen, and they contribute back to this country. They grow up to work here, pay their taxes here, and raise their children here. These children could grow up to be America's next great writers, actors, scientists, lawyers or doctors. They could be ministers or mill workers, farmers or Senators. They should also be allowed to grow up to be the President. This bill ensures that children born to or adopted by American parents have claim to the full meaning of the American dream. That not only can they have the freedom to speak, the freedom to worship in any style they wish, the freedom to own a home and pursue happiness, but that they can also have the freedom to choose to run for president. Over my years as a Senator, my office has received letters and inquiries from many foreign adopted children and their families seeking a change in the law to allow them to pursue the office of President of the United States. I ask my colleagues today to join with us in support of this bill to make America truly the land of opportunity for all its citizens' children whether born here, born abroad or adopted abroad. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, as we take time to celebrate President's Day and remember the contributions of two of our greatest leaders George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, I rise along with my colleagues Senator Landrieu and Senator Inhofe to introduce legislation that will guarantee children born to and adopted by American citizens the opportunity to become this country's next great president. The purpose of this bill is to define the term ``natural born Citizen'' as used in Article II of the Constitution to include any person born in the United States, any person born outside the United States to citizen parents, and any foreign-born child adopted by citizen parents. For many decades legal scholars have debated the meaning of the term ``natural born Citizen.'' There are many law review articles that examine the issue from every angle and come to several different conclusions. Some scholars, such as Pinkney G. McElwee in his article entitled Natural Born Citizen and Isidor Blum's article published in the New York Law School Journal, conclude that the term ``natural born'' is synonymous with ``native born.'' Others, such as Charles Gordon in the Maryland Law Review and Warren Freedman in the Cornell Law Quarterly, decide that the definition of ``natural born'' includes all people who are citizens at birth. And these scholars disagree as to who is a citizen at birth. The issue came to the public's attention when George Romney was seeking the Republican nomination for President in 1968. He was born of American missionary parents in Mexico. Some questioned his eligibility to be President under the Constitutional requirement that a President be a ``natural born citizen.'' The issue was never decided since Mr. Romney did not become the Republican nominee. Although at least two Federal court decisions have suggested what the term ``natural born citizen'' means, the issue has never been squarely resolved by a court. Today the question remains unanswered. This bill presents us with an historic opportunity. In this bill, we have the opportunity to end the uncertainty surrounding the qualifications for the presidency, and provide a fair and equal chance to children of American citizens to pursue their dreams. There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of a judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ``natural born'' means. This bill answers the need for clarification and gives certainty to our citizens whose children may be born abroad such as armed service members, foreign service members, expatriate families, and certainty to families that have adopted foreign born children, that their children, too, are eligible to seek the office of President of the United States. Part of the American dream is that any child of an American can grow up to be anything he or she wants to be including President of the United States. That it does not matter what your last name is, or how much property you own, or how wealthy you are. That the son or daughter of the humblest upbringing could one day lead this great country. This is why America is truly the land of opportunity. It should not matter if you are born to American parents in a foreign country or adopted by American parents from a foreign country. In either case, you are a child of America. This bill makes clear that a child born to American citizens abroad is eligible to hold the office of the presidency. The term ``natural born'' was used by the framers of the Constitution to reinforce their wish that the president would feel loyalty and allegiance to the United States. That the president would have a ``native feeling.'' Children born to American citizens abroad, especially those born to members of the American armed forces and foreign service, certainly have that ``native feeling.'' They are as patriotic as any American. Statutorily, they are citizens from birth, raised by Americans with American values. And they should have the same opportunities as children born on American soil. They should not be denied the chance to seek the highest office in our land because they happened to be born while their parents were stationed or working abroad. The Constitution also requires that the president have resided in the United States for fourteen years. This provision shows us that the framers believed that the president need not spend his whole life in the United States. It is possible for a person to reside in another country for a time and still be eligible to be President of the United States. So it follows that an American child born abroad should be just as eligible to be president just as any child born in the United States that happens to reside abroad for a time. This bill makes it clear that such a child is eligible to be president. This bill also makes clear that foreign born children adopted by American families will have the same opportunities as biological children of American citizens. All of the same arguments apply for foreign adopted children that apply for children born biologically to citizen parents abroad. These children are no less loyal to the United States. They are raised by Americans in America. They are not any less of a citizen than any other American. And they should be no less eligible to be president than any other American child. Furthermore, adoption law says that once a child is fully and finally adopted, they are entitled to the same rights, duties and responsibilities as biological children. They are to be treated as ``natural issue'' of their adoptive parents. All blood ties are severed from their biological families. As such, foreign adopted children living in America are treated as if born to their adoptive American parents. But there is one remaining difference. Without this bill, they will be unable to pursue the opportunity to run for President. Removal of this inequality is the last step needed to truly provide equality to the foreign adopted children of American citizens. In 1990, Americans adopted more than 7,000 children from abroad. By 2002, that number grew to more than 20,000 children. These children are members of American families, and should be treated as such. They should be allowed to have the same dreams as any other American child, including the dream that they, too, could grow up to be President of the United States. This bill makes sure they can. Foreign adopted children and children born to American citizens abroad are as invested in the well-being of this country as the rest of us. These children grow up with the benefits of being an American citizen, and they contribute back to this country. They grow up to work here, pay their taxes here, and raise their children here. These children could grow up to be America's next great writers, actors, scientists, lawyers or doctors. They could be ministers or mill workers, farmers or Senators. They should also be allowed to grow up to be the President. This bill ensures that children born to or adopted by American parents have claim to the full meaning of the American dream. That not only can they have the freedom to speak, the freedom to worship in any style they wish, the freedom to own a home and pursue happiness, but that they can also have the freedom to choose to run for president. Over my years as a Senator, my office has received letters and inquiries from many foreign adopted children and their families seeking a change in the law to allow them to pursue the office of President of the United States. I ask my colleagues today to join with us in support of this bill to make America truly the land of opportunity for all its citizens' children whether born here, born abroad or adopted abroad. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, you don't have to do much more than open the morning newspaper or turn on the evening news to understand that the enemies of freedom are working hard in Iraq. They lay ambushes for our troops, set off bombs by remote control, and drive explosive-laden autos into crowds of innocent Iraqis who want nothing more than a brighter future for their country and their children. Terrorists connected with al-Qaida, foreign interests and Baathist loyalists conspire to destroy the dream of a free Iraq before it is fully born. They will fail. But Saddam Hussein, a one-man weapon of mass destruction who preyed on his countrymen and threatened his neighbors, is in custody. His murderous sons are dead. His lieutenants and henchmen are captured, killed, or moving nearer those fates with each passing hour. The same fates await those who would steal the dream of liberty and replace it with a nightmare of repression, corruption and domination. America's front line in her war against terrorism is now in the fields of Afghanistan and the streets of Iraq instead of in the skies over New York and Washington, DC. Like Americans everywhere, I was thrilled to see the statues of Saddam Hussein knocked from their pedestals. Those images reminded me that the Iraqi people needed our help, our tanks, our troops, and our commitment to topple a brutal dictator. I am proud of our military and America's commitment to make the people of the Middle East more free and secure. Without a doubt, our military men and women will face more difficult days in Iraq, and the Iraqi people will be tested by the responsibilities that come with freedom. Everyone expects more violence. Freedom is messy--nowhere more so than in a country that has just shaken off a brutal dictatorship. Today I rise to honor who made the ultimate sacrifice one can make for his country. A few days ago I stood in Arlington National Cemetery to honor the memory of 2LT Luke S. James. Lieutenant James, 24, was a native of Hooker, OK, and a graduate of Oklahoma State University. He was killed in Iraq on January 27 during a roadside ambush near Iskandariyah. Lieutenant James was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 505th Infantry out of Fort Bragg, NC. He'd only been in Iraq a few days. Our prayers and debt of appreciation now go to his family. He is survived here on the homefront by his wife Molly, his 6-month-old son, Bradley, his parents Brad and Arleen James, his sister Sharla, and his brother Kirby. ``That was his dream (to serve in the Army),'' Molly James said in a recent interview. ``He wasn't afraid to go. He was able to do his duty and die with honor.'' As we watch the dawn of a new day in Iraq, we must never forget that the freedom we enjoy every day in America is bought at a price. 2LT Luke James 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 and with the troops who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. NICKLES. I understand from one of the proponents of the budget point of order they do not wish to concur to setting aside the amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the issue in the highway bill on which Senator McCain raised a budget point of order. I am not sure I would have made it at this point, but a point of order is legitimate. Frankly, if you believe in sustaining the budget, if you believe in a budget, this bill isn't paid for, and the budget point of order is well made. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the budget point of order even though I am relatively certain it will not pass. I have tried to restrain myself on making budget points of order. I think it is important that points of order be sustained. I thank my colleagues because almost every time last year--about 60 times--budget points of order were sustained. As a result, we saved hundreds of billions of dollars in spending. Now we find ourselves confronting a highway bill. I compliment Senator Jeffords and Senator Inhofe for their leadership. They have worked very hard to put together a bill with allocations and formulas which are fair in meeting our Nation's highway and bridge needs. I understand those needs are great, indeed. I understand they want to increase employment. I concur with the objectives. They have worked long and hard to make that happen and to come up with the funding formulas. I don't think Congress has worked as long and hard on how to pay for it. I have heard compliments of our colleagues, the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member. I compliment them as well. But the Finance Committee portion of this bill doesn't pay for this bill that is before us. Those are just the facts. Somebody can say we think it is paid for, but I can tell you it is not paid for. I will give you a couple of examples. Maybe I don't know how to read, but I happen to be a member of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee has revenue raisers to replenish the general revenue fund at about $22 billion, over 10 years. This bill is over 6 years. The amount of money raised by this bill to replenish the general revenue fund over 6 years is only $11 billion. It doesn't meet the gap. If you look at the revenues on the scoring sheet that was handed out by the Joint Committee on Taxation of February 2, the corporate estimated tax payment due July through September of 2009 increased to 119 percent of otherwise required amounts. That moves $11.4 billion from the year 2010 to the year 2009 so they can say we met our targets for the first 6 years of the bill. That is a sham. That is a shell game. To say that pays for this highway bill defies reality. I told my friends--and they are my friends. Senator Grassley is one of my very best friends. I was elected at the same time Senator Grassley was elected. He and I will be very good friends long after this bill. Senator Baucus and I are good friends. But I think it does not pass the smell test. This shouldn't be enacted into law. They have assured me it won't be, that they will come up with a replacement. I haven't seen the replacement yet. But I just try to look at the numbers and see if it adds up. The fact is right now it doesn't. Maybe there will be an amendment offered later by leadership, or maybe one offered by Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus that will pay for it. But right now, it doesn't. Right now, it relies on this shell game of moving $11.4 billion from 2010 to 2009 and saying that helps make it work. It doesn't. I am amazed people think we are going to be able to get all of this highway spending for nothing. This is a 46-percent increase over the last highway bill, TEA-21. The President proposed 17 percent, but this is 46 percent. The House is proposing 72 percent. They talked about increasing the gasoline tax to pay for it. But they did not. I am guessing they will have to come down. But where is the money coming from for the 46-percent increase? The Federal gasoline tax right now is 18.3 cents. No one here has yet said let us increase the gasoline tax. The President is opposed to that. I happen to agree with him. He thinks if States want to increase their gasoline taxes, let them do it. But right now we are saying we are going to increase Federal contract authority and obligation authority, but we don't have any new money coming in for it. I looked at what the Finance Committee did. They came up with a bunch of transfers, most of which are taking money from general revenue funds and putting it into highway funds, some of which is sort of related to highway and some not. That totals about $11 billion. It really comes up short. Even if you said this escalating corporate estimated payment in 2009 was legitimate--and it is not, and I wish somebody would come to the floor and say that is very legitimate because it is not legitimate--it is still short. So we are increasing the deficit. It depends on whose baseline you are using to see how much we are increasing the deficit, but the President forecasted the deficit at $500 billion-plus this year. This will increase that number. The President has deficit figures, estimates for this year $521 billion, $364 billion for the following year, and $268 billion for 2006. This bill is substantially higher than the President's number. Compared to the funding that is actually in the fund, it is about $39 billion shortfall. Compared to the President's number, it is $29 billion. The President was pushing the numbers as far as he thought we could push them without bankrupting the fund and without saying raid the general revenue. Let's look at what is coming into the fund right now. I mentioned we have an 18.3 cent tax. Some is earmarked for transit, but if you add the total amount of money coming into the fund, it is $228 billion over the next 6 years. This bill would result in estimated outlays of $281 billion. That is a difference of $53 billion. The Finance Committee came up with about $11 billion from general revenue, increasing to $14 billion including fuel fraud receipts to the trust fund, so $14 billion. So there is a shortage. It is not paid for. It will increase the deficit. I hope everyone understands that. I will hear a lot of speeches saying this deficit is too high. I want Members to know this bill will increase the deficit. It is not paid for. If it was paid for, it would not be increasing the deficit. It will increase the deficit. The total amount of money coming under this bill is $242 billion and the outlays are estimated to be $281, and the contracts we are making are greater than $281 billion. The obligation limits are $290 and the total budget authority is $318, and $318 billion is about a 46 percent increase over present law. We did not increase gasoline tax, so that is too big of an increase. It is not paid for. The point of order made by my colleague from Arizona should be sustained. I am relatively certain it will not be sustained. I hope people understand, in my opinion, we are making a mistake. We should use user fees to pay for the highway program. If we break that link and say highways should be financed out of general revenue funds such as income taxes or payroll taxes, there is almost no limit to how much this bill could cost. There used to be a limitation on the highway program and the mass transit program. You said users have to pay for the program; when you fill your car with gasoline, you are paying for the roads that you are using. That makes sense. We will be breaking that link under this bill. We are breaking it with general revenue financing and we are not paying for it even at that. Some Members, Senator Conrad or others, may have an amendment to pay for it. That would probably be better than just deficit financing. But we are making a mistake when we break the link between the user pay and paying for highways or not. If people say, I want a 60 or 40- percent increase in gasoline tax, you want a 50-percent increase in the highway program--this is almost 50 percent--you would have to increase the gasoline tax by 9 cents. You want 50 percent more of a program, increase the gasoline tax from 18 cents to 27 cents. That is not what we are voting on. What we are voting on is increasing the program by 46 percent and we will take some money out of general revenues to pay for it. That puts more pressure on the deficit. I don't diminish for a second the good intentions of the authorizers who are working to help build a national infrastructure that is in desperate need of more resources. I do not denigrate their efforts one iota. I compliment them. They worked a lot longer than we did on the Finance Committee to pay for it. Again, I am not disparaging the work of the chairman and ranking member, but it falls short and it needs to be improved. It will not fund this bill. It relies on a shell game of at least $11.5 billion. They said they are trying to raise $22 billion to replenish the fund and they do that over 10 years and we find about $11.4 billion is a shell game. It does not meet the needs of financing the bill if people want to say legitimately the bill is paid for. We have to be honest. We have to say this bill is taking a lot of money out of general revenues and it will increase the deficit to pay for the 46-percent increase in highways. People need to know just the facts. People are always entitled to their own opinion, but I don't think they are entitled to their own facts. The facts are this is a tremendously large increase in the highway program that is not yet paid for and will increase the deficit. Therefore, I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of the budget point of order later this afternoon.

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. The President's proposal increases from $218 billion to $257 billion, an increase of 17 percent.

Mr. NICKLES. Over the 6 years, a 17-percent increase. The bill before the Senate in contract authority is an increase of 46 percent.

Mr. NICKLES. It is 46 percent over the 6-year period. You have a 6- year bill. The bill that just expired, TEA-21, was $218 billion over 1998-2003. This new bill will be a total of, for contract authority, $308 billion; total budget authority would be $318 billion.

Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I did not usually put Montana and saints in the same sentence, but I understand the Montana Saints prevailed and I wish to congratulate the Senator from Montana.