Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for another half second?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his cooperation. Of course, this will be charged to our time. I appreciate the comments by Senator Coverdell and Senator Gregg. I know Senator Grams from Minnesota will be speaking shortly on this amendment. I will make some quick comments, and maybe I will not take 5 minutes. I hope we do not have to have across-the-board cuts to meet our objectives, but our objective is to make absolutely certain that we do not dip in, as some people say, or spend some of the Social Security surplus money. Right now there are surplus taxes coming from Social Security. There are more taxes going in than going out. We want 100 percent of that to be used to pay down the national debt. We do not want to spend it. We do not want to spend it for anything other than paying down the national debt. Period. We are drawing the line. I heard my colleagues from the Appropriations Committee--and I have great respect for the members on that committee; I served on it at one time--say: We do not want to; we do not have to. I agree with that. We even put in the resolution we would have across-the-board cuts only if necessary. I hope it will not be necessary. I do not think it will be necessary. Right now, in totaling up the bills, from the Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, basically if we have discretionary spending above $592 billion or $593 billion, then we will start dipping into the Social Security money. Current projections are if we continue spending, as outlined in all the appropriations bills, we will be above that figure by about $4 billion or $5 billion. We have not concluded major appropriations bills. We have not concluded the Ag bill, but we are very close. We have not concluded the Department of Defense bill, and we have not concluded the Labor-HHS bill which is the biggest bill. Among those three bills, we can find $5 billion, and there would be no reason whatsoever to have to make this cut. In the event we do not, for whatever reason, then let's have some adjustments. If it turns out we are $5 billion over--and those are the figures given by the Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee--we will have across-the-board reduction cuts of about 1 percent. It will apply to Defense, Labor-HHS, and VA-HUD. It will apply to all agencies. That is minuscule, that is affordable, and that is doable. It will keep us from dipping into Social Security trust funds as we have done year after year. A lot of us have been pretty resolute in saying we ought to have a line. We are breaching the line on the caps because we are exceeding the caps by using emergency designations. We are now saying the absolute line is let's not grab Social Security money. That money comes from payroll taxes. It is supposed to be set aside for retirement. It is not to be spent on a variety of programs, whether that is a $2 billion increase in NIH or a $2.3 billion increase in education, or a big increase in defense, or an $8.7 billion emergency Agricultural bill. It should not be spent for those things. If necessary, and hopefully it will not be necessary, we will implement across-the-board reductions to make absolutely certain that we do not dip into the Social Security trust funds. I thank Senator Gregg, Senator Coverdell, Senator Grams from Minnesota, Senator Gramm from Texas, and others in supporting this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and hopefully it will not be necessary; Congress will pass its bills and show at least enough discipline to not dip into the Social Security trust fund. Again, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his accommodation so I can attend another meeting. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, might I inquire of my colleague from New Jersey how long would he wish to speak.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues for going to the Finance Committee. I have just a couple of comments. I have heard some of the discussion which said if we enact this amendment, we will have a 5-percent reduction. That is not the case. I have heard my colleagues say the Congressional Budget Office says it. Well, frankly, you get into descriptions of who is doing the scoring. If you use the administration scoring, it is not 5 percent; it is 1 percent. We use some administration scoring, OMB scoring. When we had the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, we used OMB scoring. They were the ones who implemented it. We use OMB scoring in a lot of the bills we have before us. If that is the case, we are $5 billion off. I don't think we have to be $5 billion off. I think we can, within the last few bills, narrow it down. We can eliminate $5 billion of growth in spending. Across the board won't be necessary, it shouldn't be necessary, if we show just a little discipline. I know others on the other side said we can raise taxes. That may be their proposal. But it is not going to pass. Yet I know there is lots of demand for increases in spending. We are trying to say we should have some restraint. The restraint is that we shouldn't be dipping into the Social Security surpluses. If we are going to spend Social Security surpluses, let's have an across-the- board reduction--if necessary. I hope it is not necessary. Let's do that if necessary to restrain the growth of spending, so we can ensure that 100 percent of the Social Security funds are used for debt reduction or for Social Security and not used for more Government spending in a variety of areas, whether it is defense, Labor-HHS, or you name it. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I yield the floor. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my underlying amendment No. 1851.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, two or three comments are in order. Some people are still debating the amendment to which we have already agreed. I withdrew it. It was a sense of the Senate, a sense of the Senate which said we shouldn't be raiding Social Security funds. I don't think we should be raiding Social Security funds for education or for defense or for other issues. We have a lot of money. Defense is going up by $17 billion. Education alone is going up by $2.3 billion, even more than the President requested. As I stated before, if you do have an across-the-board cut, it is only 1 percent. And if you cut 1 percent off that 37.3, you are talking about $370 million off an increase that is $2.3 billion. So you still have an increase of $2 billion in education alone. People are entitled to their own interpretation. They are not entitled to their own facts. Education has grown dramatically. The entire Labor-HHS bill, on which I have already quoted the figures, has grown from--I don't have it right in front of me--about $50 billion a few years ago to about $90 billion today. So when I see charts: ``Republicans slashing education,'' it is just absolutely false. We have more money in this bill than the President requested. And even if you have a 1-percent reduction--and I hope we don't; I have said this time and time again; I hope we don't have an across-the-board reduction--I hope the appropriators will work with everybody to stay within the limit to which we agreed, which actually, so everybody will know, is $592 billion, and if we do that, we won't be touching Social Security. That is what we ought to do. You can fund an increase in education, an increase in NIH, an increase in defense, an increase in HUD, an increase in veterans, and still not raid Social Security. That is what we are trying to do. Just for the information of my colleagues, I withdrew the amendment. I don't believe the Senator's amendment is in order. I don't know how you amend something that is not underlying. I make that point and yield the floor at this time. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator can give me 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, shortly, within the next 10 or 15 minutes, we will be voting on the Lautenberg second-degree amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. I looked through the amendment. Although it is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, it should be factual. This is not factual. Amendment No. 1851 calls for across-the- board cuts which could result in a broad-based reduction of 10 percent. That is not true. There is no way in the world it can be 10 percent unless Congress goes on a drunken spending spree. Maybe some people want to do that. We are not going to do that. You can get into all kinds of discussions using CBO or using OMB. Further, the amendment says we should do it without using budget scorekeeping gimmicks. The gimmick is, we are using the administration's scorekeeping. That is a gimmick. Maybe it is wrong, but I have heard many people on the other side say OMB is more accurate than CBO. If you used all CBO numbers, it would be, at most, a 5 percent reduction. So 10 percent does not even belong in this debate. Using OMB scorekeeping, you are talking about 1 percent. I actually believe we will not have to. I have talked to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he says we can make it. We are talking about spending $500 billion. We are only $5 billion off. That is about 1 percent. We ought to be able to do that. The Labor-HHS bill we are debating right now has some big increases in some programs. Maybe we could scale back those increases just a little. NIH grows from $15 billion to $17 billion, but the President only requested an increase of $300 million. Does it have to grow by $2 billion? Education. I have heard some of my colleagues say, oh, those Republicans are cutting education. The bill has a $2.3 billion increase over last year and $500 million more than the President requested. There is a $500 million increase in the bill that is before us dealing with labor. So my point is, I think we can tighten up a little bit and not have across-the-board cuts. I just mentioned Labor-HHS. Maybe we could also do it in defense; maybe we could do it in a couple of other areas. But the way I read the Lautenberg amendment, getting around the false statements that it could cut up to 10 percent, it says: ``closing special-interest tax loopholes''--that is another way of saying let's raise taxes--``and using other appropriate offsets.'' If the Senator has the votes to raise taxes, let him try to raise taxes. This Congress passed a tax cut, not a tax increase. The Senator had a chance to offer tax increases. They did not pass. I am just saying maybe he still wants to raise taxes, but that did not happen. The tax cuts were not signed into law. The President vetoed that. So we are not going to get tax cuts. So I am saying, whatever happens, let's make sure we do not dip into this money of the Social Security surplus. We are saying 100 percent of that should be used to pay down the national debt--100 percent of it. We should not be raiding that money to spend on all these other appropriations bills. That is what I am saying. I look at the substitute offered by my friend and colleague from New Jersey that says: Hey, let's raise taxes; let's use other appropriate offsets. I do not know what they are. If he has ``other appropriate offsets,'' offer them. I want to help work with my colleagues to make sure we don't take money out of the Social Security fund. I am willing to do it. We have bills on the floor now where we can do it. Maybe we should have other offsets for the Labor-HHS bill. Maybe we should have other offsets for other appropriations bills. But if we try to put them all together, let's make sure we do not dip into Social Security money. Let's not do that. We should not do it. I think this amendment by my colleague from New Jersey says: Well, instead of any cuts in spending, let's raise taxes. I think that would be a mistake. I do not think the votes are there to do it. I do not think it will happen in this Congress. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains?

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, was the request for a time agreement on the Kennedy amendment?

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. NICKLES. I object.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. To my knowledge, we have never confirmed a nominee who was opposed by the National Sheriffs Association or by a State Federation of Police Chiefs. I don't think we have done that in my Senate career. Does the Senator know of any instance where we have ignored the recommendations of major law enforcement officers?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NICKLES. I didn't know my colleague wanted to engage in this. I was not clear that the Senator wanted to make a speech. I want to say absolutely and positively that there is no ``color test.'' No one raised that suggestion, that I am aware of, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation. I want to clarify again. I had several colleagues say they did not know what race Mr. White is. I think it is very much uncalled for and incorrect for anybody to make that kind of implication. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before we return to the consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill, I would like to make a couple of comments. Raymond Fisher, just confirmed to the Ninth Circuit, is the 323rd judge who has been confirmed since President Clinton has been in office. 195 of those judges have been confirmed since Republicans took control of the Senate in 1995. Judge Ronnie White is the first nominee, I believe, to be rejected on the floor since Republicans took control of the Senate. One of our colleagues said that he hoped that we are not returning to a ``color test.'' That is what was said. I am offended by that statement. Many people on our side of the aisle didn't know what race Judge White is. We did know that 77 of Missouri's 114 sheriffs were opposed to his nomination. We did find out that two State prosecutors' offices raised their objections. We did know there was a letter from the National Sheriffs Association opposing his nomination. I believe that we have been very consistent, at least on this side of the aisle. We do not want to confirm a nominee where you have major law enforcement organizations and leading officials saying they are opposed to the nomination, regardless of what race he or she is. I do not believe the Senate has ever confirmed anyone when national law enforcement organizations or officials have stated that the nominee has a poor or weak background in law enforcement. To my knowledge, I have never voted to confirm any such nominee, nor have many other members. I want to make it absolutely clear and understood that members voted no on Judge White's nomination because of the statements made by law enforcement officers, in addition to the respect that we have for the two Senators from the nominee's state who recommended a no vote. We respect their recommendation to us. So I make mention of that. I am bothered that somebody said I hope we are not returning to a ``color test.'' That statement was uncalled for and, I think, not becoming of the Senate. I want to make sure that point is made.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, regular order. I will answer a question. If the Senator wants to make a speech, he can make the speech on his own time.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) is necessarily absent.