Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, for his statement. He happens to be exactly right. The net essence of this reconciliation instruction is to tell the Finance Committee, save $3.4 billion over the next 5 years. The Finance Committee is an enormous committee. It has jurisdiction over welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, a total of about $4.6 trillion over the next 5 years. Surely this committee can find $3.4 billion of waste, of money that should not be spent. Senator Byrd alluded to the reconciliation process and said it is supposed to be used to save money, to reduce the deficit. We gave an instruction to the Finance Committee to do that. Can't we save at least $3.5 billion out of $4.6 trillion? I have heard people say: It is going to mean some cuts in Medicaid. Medicaid has a lot of fraud. I tell my colleagues and my good friend from North Dakota, I may want to do a hearing in the Budget Committee, if the Finance Committee is not willing to do it. Let's get into these intergovernmental transfers. Let's find out about how much some States are ripping off the Medicaid system. I use that term exactly as I meant it, ripping off the Medicaid system, ripping off the Federal Government, taking a program that is supposed to be 50-50 Federal-State and turning it into a program where the Federal Government pays 100 percent. There are some proprietors who specialize in how to milk the Federal Government on Medicaid where the State doesn't even have a match. They don't have to pay anything. It is all Federal Government. They are doing that today in a lot of States. Maybe they will pay a little payment to the hospital if they will participate. There are a lot of schemes, scams, I think fraud, probably should be totally illegal, some of it may be bordering on illegality, to the tune of billions of dollars. The committee doesn't have to do that. We just said: Look, can't you find at least $3.5 billion? We have the appropriators tell us day after day: Wait a minute. We only appropriate maybe about 30-some percent of the budget. Don't make us take the full brunt of any savings plan. What about those entitlements? Year after year people say: We can't do that. My guess is you could find this amount of savings in a number of entitlements. The committee has jurisdiction over welfare. Are you going to tell me there is not welfare abuse; that it couldn't be tightened up? One assumption I think we need to look at is the earned-income tax credit. This is a $36 billion program our Federal Government is writing a check for every year; in some cases, a lump sum in excess of $4,000 for a family. We find out it has abuse of 27 to 30 percent from fraud or incorrect payments. We can't tighten that up? I didn't say 5-percent fraud. I didn't say 10 percent. I said 27 to 32 percent of fraud or mispayment in the earned-income tax credit program. Surely we can tighten that up. That program over the next 5 years will be about $170 billion or something. Surely we can find some savings in that program. Whether you are talking about Medicaid, Medicare--there is fraud in Medicare. We have had some people put in jail because of fraud in Medicare. Let's tighten it up. We have deficits. We can't afford to have fraud. We can't afford to have this kind of cheating system going on day in and day out. It has happened frequently. So should we not look at the two-thirds of the budget, two-thirds of the budget that many people say: That is untouchable; let's not do anything to Social Security. I don't want Social Security fraud. When you are spending the kind of money we are, there is some fraud. I think we should look at every dollar. The Finance Committee has enormous jurisdiction and is very capably led by Senator Grassley. He is exactly right: $3.4 billion out of a total of $4.6 trillion is .0007 percent. It is not one-tenth of 1 percent. It is less than that. It is such a small figure. Yet some people are acting as if the sky is falling because somebody is afraid maybe their gravy train of abuse might not be able to continue or somebody is saying: Wait a minute, we have been doing that for a long time. I want to make sure I can continue. I say: What is your program? Let's eliminate some fraud. Let's eliminate some waste. Let's give the discretion to the Finance Committee to come up with some savings. Let's curtail the growth of entitlement programs if they are fraudulent, if they are incorrect. I have great confidence Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus are not going to report anything out of the Finance Committee that is not going to be fair if they are talking about trying to tighten up some of the abuses in the system. They are not limited. They are not bound. They are not directed to do anything except can't you save $3.5 billion over the next 5 years when we assume spending under the committee's jurisdiction will be $4.6 trillion? Surely that can be done. Again, appropriators have said: Let's not have us bear the full brunt. Let's have savings elsewhere in the budget. These are very minor savings, very doable savings. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Baucus amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I might not have any objection. I would like to ask Senator Cochran. I just wanted Senator Cochran to be able to respond to my colleague from Maryland. We may be able to do that. We could actually set aside the Corzine amendment and discuss the amendment of the Senator from Maryland. I am willing to consider that.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the order we have agreed upon now would be to recognize the Senator from Florida. I ask unanimous consent there be 10 minutes on each side on the Senator's amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, we have had a good debate. I appreciate our colleagues staying this late. We have been on this bill for a little over 13 hours today. I think we have made a lot of progress. We are going to have to make a lot more progress tomorrow.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before my friend and colleague from Montana leaves, I want to say this amendment increases taxes by $17.2 billion. It increases taxes next year by $13.2 billion. For the information of colleagues, we are assuming next year, on the reconciliation, which is all that is going to happen this year--or maybe all that will happen--that is the total child credit, it so happens. Some people say, well, this is assuming revenue loophole closings. That is not accurate. This resolution says increased taxes by $17.2 billion. We are assuming that the child credit is going to stay at $1,000 per child. So these two are in direct conflict. I want everybody to know this is a big spending increase in an area where we already have big spending increases--enormous, if you go over the last few years. In spite of that, it is a big tax increase. In fact, it is a lot bigger tax increase than the amendment we voted on yesterday. I want people to know this is a tax increase that is very large.

Mr. NICKLES. Yes.

Mr. NICKLES. I am reading the amendment where it says offered by Senator Murray and ``on line''----

Mr. NICKLES. The purpose?

Mr. NICKLES. It says, ``by closing tax loopholes.''

Mr. NICKLES. But that is not what this amendment does. That is the purpose. The amendment says: ``On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $13.2 billion.'' That is increasing taxes, an instruction to the Finance Committee.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is absolutely incorrect. The loopholes we are closing basically will pay for extending present law. What we assumed in this budget resolution is continuation of present law, plus the AMT fix.

Mr. NICKLES. I have the floor. I want to make sure my colleague knows how to understand what these amendments say. If you read lines 1, 2, 3, and 4, that increases taxes by $17.2 billion over the resolution. Our resolution assumes continuation of the existing tax law. So this would increase taxes by $17.2 billion over existing law. All we are assuming, frankly, in the big amount we have for next year, since that is the bulk of our tax increase, it happens to be for the child credit. So I am telling my colleagues, we talk about closing loopholes--and there are some out there. I know the chairman and ranking member are trying to do that with the leasing provision. I happen to support that. But you are spending it as well. This resolution says increase taxes. The purpose doesn't make law; the purpose doesn't change the resolution. You can put anything up there. You could have as a purpose to make everybody feel good and to have nice incomes in education. That can be your purpose. But when you are amending the budget resolution, you are saying how much money to spend and how much money to tax. This resolution says to raise taxes by $17.2 billion and raise spending by $8.6 billion. I might also say that it raises spending by $8.6 billion in the first year. One would think you would not do that for 1 year and drop it down. So you can assume it would be 8.6 for a multitude of years. This is really like a $100 billion amendment on the spending side over 10 years, and then on the tax side, I don't know how many. If you multiply this out over the years, it increases taxes by 17.2 and spending by 8.6.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I enjoy working with my colleague from Montana on the Finance Committee, and I am one who is more than willing to close loopholes. I also tell my colleagues that my friend from Montana and the Senator from Iowa have used almost every loophole closer, multiple times. I am happy to close loopholes, but this amendment does not close loopholes. This amendment tells the Finance Committee to raise taxes by $17.2 billion, period. The Finance Committee can do it any way they want. I am just telling the Senator that is exactly what it says. What we have assumed is we are going to allow the child tax credit to go forward. Maybe that is not a correct assumption. Maybe families are not going to get to keep the present tax law. Maybe the child tax credit will be reduced from $1,000 to $700. Maybe the marriage penalty relief we have in the year 2004 will not happen in 2005. I am afraid, if this amendment is adopted, it will not happen.

Mr. NICKLES. To answer my colleague's question, in the budget resolution we assume $20 billion of revenue loopholes and that, frankly, is to pay for the tax cuts we have in this bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Not just yet. My point is--and I have not even alluded to the education issue, and I am going to hand that to Senator Gregg who knows far more about education than this Senator--no matter what level we had in this resolution, I was more than confident somebody would say that is not enough for education. I have looked at the total education function we have, and it totals $97.6 billion. That does not include the additional $5 billion--yes, it does. That includes the $5 billion Senator Gregg has put in for higher education reauthorization. I looked at what we spent. That is $97 billion. In 1990, we spent $39 billion, almost three times as much. In the year 2000, we spent $49 billion. It is right at twice as much as we spent in the year 2000. We have had dramatic increases in education--dramatic increases--including the last several years. But no matter what that amount is, people are going to say that is not enough and, oh, yes, we want to increase taxes a lot more and throw a lot more money at it. I am just not sure that is the correct result we should be following. I want everybody to know this is a tax increase. I want everybody to know this is a humongous increase in this program. I have not figured the percentage.

Mr. NICKLES. With this additional money, it is a 40.6-percent increase. For everybody who says we want to balance the budget, how do you balance the budget and simultaneously increase programs by 40 percent? This fictitious point of let's close loopholes, if there are loopholes out there, I am sure the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee want to close them because they have a lot of demands. I am all for closing loopholes, but that doesn't fly. The amendment says raise taxes by $17.2 billion.

Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank our colleagues. We spent most of the morning on one amendment. I discussed this with my friend and colleague from North Dakota and said I know a lot of Members have education speeches they want to make. We were pretty generous with time allotments for those amendments. But I really want to tell our colleagues that generosity with time is coming to a close. We are going to start picking up the pace rather substantially. That means we are going to have a lot more votes. It means I am doing everything I can to avoid a vote-arama which Senator Byrd and I have discussed many times. We think it is demeaning to the Senate to have a large number of votes where Members are voting with almost no debate. We are making a great concession on our side. It is easy to debate and say now the time is up and have a vote-arama. I think that is demeaning to the Senate. I have discussed this with my colleague, Senator Conrad. We are willing to consider more amendments with time agreements, have a shorter debate time, and try to dispose of amendments so we can avoid the necessity of being here very late Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and/ or Saturday. We are going to complete the bill. But let us try to cooperate, Democrats and Republicans, proponents and opponents. We all have various issues on these amendments, but we are going to have to move quickly. That last rollcall vote was 25 or 26 minutes. The time limit is 15. I expect to be calling for regular order shortly after 15 minutes. We have three or four very significant amendments that will be coming up. Senator Byrd, I believe, is going to offer an amendment dealing with striking reconciliation. I believe Senator Stevens and Senator Warner may be offering an amendment on defense. Excuse me. Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Bunning have an amendment we hope to be able to accept. That shouldn't take too long. Senator Byrd has an amendment on reconciliation. We expect an amendment dealing with defense. We expect an amendment dealing with pay-go. Those are three or four major issues. We might stack the votes. I will consult with my colleague from North Dakota as far as the timing of the votes. We have had a significant debate. It is time for us to dispose of these amendments so we can avoid the so-called vote-arama.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's excellent suggestion. I am not ready to enter into a consent on all of those amendments. I think the Senator from South Carolina has indicated he wants 45 minutes on his amendment. I am willing to enter into an agreement on Senator Byrd's amendment. I don't think I am ready to go yet on the Stevens-Warner amendment. I need to consult with them first. If we can enter into an agreement on those two amendments, I am happy to do that.

Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, our order would be then to consider the amendment offered by Senator Graham and Senator Bunning.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.