Don Nickles

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 3, 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 $703 million in budget authority and by $6.808 billion in outlays in 2004. Current level for revenues is $101 million above the budget resolution in 2004. This is my first report for fiscal year 2004. I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter and report in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. If I might modify the request of the Senator, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 3:45 with 15 minutes allotted to each side. Now, I was not aware that originally Senator Biden, in his eloquent negotiations, already had a 2-hour advantage over this side. There might be a few additional remarks this Senator wants to make which will take a little more than 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Ten? I will further modify that. I will certainly accede to that. If he has only spoken for 2 hours, we look forward to an additional 10 minutes for the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES. I have just caught a portion of this debate, but I want to make a couple of comments. My very good friend from Delaware said, Why is this amendment a bad idea? This amendment is a bad idea because it is unconstitutional. We all take an oath at the beginning of the year to uphold the Constitution. I know all of our colleagues are aware of article I, section 7 of the Constitution that says all bills raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. The House originates tax bills. The amendment of our colleague from Delaware tries to turn an appropriations bill into a tax bill, a tax bill that did not go through the Ways and Means Committee. It certainly didn't go through the Finance Committee. I am on the Finance Committee. So it is unconstitutional. If this amendment passes, the House will blue-slip it. For people who do not know what a blue slip is, they kill the bill. They will not even consider it. They will not even look at it. It is a great tradition in the House because we have tried it on occasion. Every time it happens, every time somebody tries to slip in a little revenue provision in the bill, no matter how insignificant in comparison to the overall bill, the House loves to blue-slip it and remind the Senate that the Constitution gives them and them only the right to originate revenue bills. Our forefathers put it in the Constitution. We are sworn to uphold the Constitution. This is a killer amendment. It does not belong in this bill. If our colleague wants to raise income taxes by 10 percent on the upper income brackets, he can do so. He can introduce a bill. He may or may not get a hearing before the Finance Committee. I hope not, but he might. He may or may not get a markup in the Finance Committee. I hope not, but he might. He might take a bill that is going through the Finance Committee and offer it as an amendment and be successful. I hope not, but he might. Those are all legal, constitutional avenues of raising taxes. This is not. You don't raise taxes on a spending bill that is going through the Senate unless the House has a revenue provision. If the House has a revenue provision, then it certainly can be done. So that is one reason. Let's not kill this bill. I have heard a lot of people say they support the bill. They want to pass the money, they want to assist the troops, they even want to assist the Iraqi people--it is hard to say the Iraqi government; they don't have a government yet, but we are trying to establish a government and I compliment Ambassador Bremer and the President. This is an enormous effort the United States is undertaking. It is challenging; it is expensive. It is expensive in dollars and it is also expensive in blood. We have lost American lives. We have thousands of Americans who are spending their time right now in Iraq, in Baghdad, away from their families, making a significant sacrifice. Now we are trying to say are we going to help them or are we not. This amendment which purports to say we want to pay for it, but we are only going to have the upper 1 percent pay for it, I don't think is good tax policy. I don't think you can say we just want to sock it to the upper income people. I heard earlier statements by speakers saying if we do not do this, the deficit is just getting really bad. I happen to be concerned about the deficit, too. But I might note we just passed a couple of appropriations bills and I tallied up the number of amendments to increase spending on those appropriations bills and I didn't hear very much on the other side about concern for deficit. One of the last appropriations bills we passed was the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, and there were amendments, primarily supported by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we defeated using budget points of order, that would have increased spending over a 1-year period, next year, $26.4 billion, and over a 10-year period $386.8 billion. That was just on the Labor-HHS bill alone. No one was saying the deficit concerns us. Then on another bill, just to give another example on the Homeland Security bill, Senator Cochran's bill, Senator Cochran made points of order against amendments to increase spending by $17.4 billion in 2004 alone, and a total of $254.1 billion over a 10-year period of time. I did not hear people say then, we are concerned about the deficit. In other words, they are quite willing to spend more money and bust the budget over the President's request and over what was agreed upon by both the House and the Senate. There was no concern about deficits when we were trying to increase spending in those areas. Now we have a spending bill before us. This bill is outside the budget. It is requested as an emergency by the President of the United States. It passed the Appropriations Committee as an emergency. I am not saying it is perfect. I will tell you that I doubt it is perfect. I expect it might be improved. It probably will be improved as we consider it on the floor. But to say we are now going to basically violate the Constitution and have a tax amendment that would really, in effect, kill the bill, I don't want to do that. Nor do I want to increase income tax rates on the upper 1 or 2 percent of American taxpayers. That is a 10-percent increase. I heard people say that is just delaying it. It is a 10-percent increase. It would take the maximum rate from 35 percent to 38.2 percent. I might mention 35 percent. When Bill Clinton was President, the maximum rate was 31. When he was elected, it was 31 percent. After he passed some tax increases, it went up to 39.6. All these great tax cuts that we have done moved the tax rate down to 35 percent. President Clinton and Congress at that time reduced the rate of his increase on the upper income by about half. If my math is correct, 35 percent is more than a third. That doesn't include what States charge. If you add State taxes on top of it, you realize some people are paying more than 40-some-odd percent of their income to government. In other words, government is coming closer to taking half of what they make. I disagree with that because I think that suffocates people's initiative and their willingness to build, grow, and expand. As mentioned by the chairman of the Finance Committee, 80 percent of the benefits on the top income tax rates are really held by small business and sole proprietorships, S corporations, and farms. We would be hitting the very people who are creating the jobs. If we want to have economic growth in this country, the last thing we need to do is say, if you are only a small business, we will sock it to you with a 10-percent increase. I think that makes no sense whatsoever. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment primarily on constitutional grounds. If this amendment is agreed to, this amendment will be blue-slipped. It would kill the bill, and there would be no assistance coming out of the Senate. I urge my colleagues not to make that mistake--not to pass a tax policy without consideration certainly of those on the Ways and Means Committee and on the Finance Committee as is the normal order, the way we are supposed to legislate on appropriations matters. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am happy to recommend, along with Senator Inhofe, the nomination of Ron White to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of the State of Oklahoma. Ron White has been a partner in a prestigious law firm in Tulsa, OK, for 17 years. He is eminently qualified. He has considerable experience in major corporate litigation in Tulsa with sixty percent of his court appearances taking place in Federal court. He is a man of outstanding individual character, and the President could not have picked a more qualified person for this job. A native of Sapulpa, Ron is a 1983 Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Oklahoma. He earned his Juris Doctorate (Cum Laude) from the University of Oklahoma College of Law in 1986, where he was a member of the Order of the Coif Honor Society. Ron is also very active in his community as a member of both the Philbrook Museum of Art Masters Society and the Tulsa Ballet Founders Society. In addition, he is on the Board of Directors of the Margaret Hudson Program, an organization that helps pregnant teens and young mothers finish high school. Ron has been admitted to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for Northern, Western, and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma, and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Furthermore, he has been rated ``unanimously qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Ron is exceptionally qualified to serve as Eastern District Judge for the State of Oklahoma. The judicial system and our nation as a whole will benefit from his service. Senator Inhofe and I are pleased to recommend confirmation of Ronald A. White to the Senate.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, as the Senate considers this temporary extension of our transportation programs, I would like to note for my colleagues the budgetary implications of this legislation. This bill is subject to a point of order pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the total level of contract authority for transportation programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation--on an annualized basis--exceeds the allocation provided to that committee in the FY 2004 budget resolution. Because the amount is not significant, and the bill is only a short-term extension, I have chosen not to pursue the point of order at this time. In addition, section 10 of the bill contains a number of provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget, thus subjecting the bill to another 60-vote point of order pursuant to section 306 of the Budget Act. Subsections (a), (b) and (c) amend sections 250 and 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and purport to extend the life of the transportation categories. Subsection (d) deems certain spending adjustments to be ``zero'' for FY 2004. Finally subsection (e) expresses a ``sense of Congress'' with respect to the adjustments for revenue aligned budget authority (aka RABA). While some may argue that these ``budgetary provisions'' are of little consequence given the expiration of the statutory spending caps which had been set out in section 251, I feel it is still important to comment upon them. I am concerned that their inclusion in this bill may signal to some that we have prejudged the important fiscal policy debate that must take place when the long-term reauthorization comes before the Senate. Let me assure my colleagues, that in agreeing to this necessary stop-gap measure today, I am in no way conceding the future budgetary treatment of transportation spending. These issues have a long history. In 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was enacted and from a budgetary perspective introduced two new concepts: two transportation categories (for highways and transit) within the discretionary spending limits and an annual automatic adjustment to those limits, aka RABA. Both concepts were enshrined in section 251 as well as in the transportation laws. In general, section 251 set out the statutory discretionary spending limits through FY 2002. These limits were enforced through sequestration. In other words, back in 1998 special (one might even say privileged) consideration was afforded transportation spending within the context of an overall goal to limit spending and balance the budget by 2002. While TEA-21 purported to establish special budgetary treatment through FY 2003, the mechanisms were placed within section 251 which expired on September 30, 2002 (pursuant to section 275(b)). Consequently this special budgetary treatment of transportation spending ceased to have any substantive meaning nearly 2 years ago--after enactment of the FY 2002 appropriations bills. I must also remind my colleagues that this RABA mechanism was to have been a two-way street. If gas tax revenues exceeded previous estimates, spending for transportation would go up. Similarly if gas tax revenues decreased, spending levels were to have gone down--thus not altering the ``path to a balanced budget.'' This mechanism worked well through the boom time of the late 1990's as actual gas tax revenues consistently exceeded previous estimates and Congress and the President happily spent this windfall. However, when actual gas receipts cam in below predicted levels and the President reflected the lower levels dictated by TEA-21 in his FY 2003 budget, few in Washington were willing to acknowledge this reality and spend less. I mention this today because I am concerned by the language in this bill that expresses the ``Sense of Congress'' on RABA. While the language is not binding and merely suggests that any future provisions should seek to minimize fluctuations in spending--which sounds like a good thing-- its very presence in H.R. 3087 might lead some to believe that the concept of separate transportation categories and the RABA adjustment's inclusion in a long-term extension is a done deal. The Senate should remember that when TEA-21 was enacted it was done so in the context of 5-year discretionary spending limits--which I remind my colleagues were designed to manage the growth of discretionary spending in order to reach a balanced budget by 2002. Since then, balanced budgets, surpluses and the days of 5-year caps have come and gone. And while I sincerely hope we can exercise fiscal constraint in the coming years, I do not know when or if we will again put 5-year discretionary caps into law. Our recent experiences have shown us that, at best, caps might be useful for 2 years. Consequently, I believe that as we work towards a long-term reauthorization of our Federal transportation programs, we must take a fresh look at any associated budgetary mechanisms. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues in the future.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference report to accompany H.R. 2658, the Department of Defense appropriations bill by FY 2004. I commend the distinguished chairman and the ranking member on their successfully reporting and conferencing this bill. The pending bill provides $368.7 billion in total budget authority and $389.2 billion in total outlays for fiscal year 2004. The Senate bill is $3.5 billion in BA and $4.6 billion outlays below the President's budget request. These funds were shifted to other non- defense spending bills consistent with an agreement with the administration. 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. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. NICKLES. There is a nomination of Judge Mosman. I wonder if it would be possible to vote on that nomination by voice vote or begin that vote momentarily for the convenience of all Members?

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 September 22, 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 above the budget resolution by $3.092 billion in budget authority and by $3.005 billion in outlays in 2003. Current level for revenues is $1 million below the budget resolution in 2003. Per section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95, provisions designated as an emergency are exempt from enforcement of the budget resolution. As a result, the following current level report excludes budget authority of $984 million from funds provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2003, P.L. 108-69. Since my last report, dated July 30, 2003, the Congress has cleared and the President has signed the following acts that changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues: Family Farmer Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2003, P.L. 108-73; an act to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act, P.L. 108-74; Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, P.L. 108-77; and, Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, P.L. 108-78. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference report to accompany H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. I commend the distinguished chairman and ranking member. They and their staffs need to be congratulated on successfully reporting and conferencing the very first Homeland Security appropriations bill. The pending bill provides $30.2 billion in total budget authority and $31.0 billion in total outlays for fiscal year 2004. The Senate bill is $1.4 billion in BA and outlays above the President's budget request. The pending bill funds the program of the Department of Homeland Security, including the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Secret Service, the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and several other offices and activities. 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. President, the conference agreement on the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security includes funding for the Project Bioshield proposal, a $5.6-billion initiative proposed in the President's 2004 budget to develop and purchase countermeasures to combat public health threats. The appropriation itself is very unusual, providing 10 years' worth of discretionary program funding all at once, with $890 million for 2004 and essentially a gigantic $4.7 billion ``advance'' appropriation to cover the next 9 years. Further, this funding is being provided without authorization, since that bill, S. 15, has been blocked from consideration in the Senate by a small minority of Senators. I am very concerned about appropriating this much money for any purpose without a proper authorization. I am equally concerned about protecting the integrity of the budget due to the proposal's unconventional use of advance appropriations authority. It is rare to provide 10 years' worth of appropriations to a program in one fell swoop, and it opens the door to future ``piggy-banking'' or redirection of those funds. My colleagues may remember that Congress decided in the 2001 budget resolution to begin limiting the use of advance appropriations since they had become a way to avoid annual spending limits. The potential to abuse advance appropriations for scoring purposes was never more clearly illustrated that with the recent consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill in the Senate, as amendment after amendment altered the timing of advance appropriations and claimed it as an ``offset.'' Since the potential for redirecting, rescinding, delaying, or accelerating the $4.7 billion Bioshield advance appropriation presents too great a temptation, the HELP Committee Chairman Judd Gregg is working with me to prevent these abuses by creating a new scorekeeping rule to protect the unique purpose of this funding. The rule would ensure that any funding for Bioshield will be spent on that program, or not spent at all, by providing that any legislation changing the availability of the funds will not be scored for purposes of budget enforcement. However, until the authorization bill including our protections is enacted, the budget remains at risk. Since the President originally requested that Bioshield be a mandatory spending program, the 2004 budget resolution did not provide for its consideration as a discretionary spending program. Thus, my colleagues should be aware that its inclusion in this bill subjects the entire bill to a 60-vote point of order. I plan to take whatever steps are necessary this year, and in next year's budget resolution, to ensure that this program is properly authorized and that the integrity of the budget is protected. I look forward to working with our leader and my fellow committee chairmen in this regard.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to inform the members of this distinguished body about H.R. 2657, the legislative branch appropriations bill for FY 2004, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The pending bill provides $3.5 billion in new budget authority and $3.7 billion in new outlays for FY 2004 to fund the operations of the Senate and House of Representatives; the Architect of the Capitol; the U.S. Capitol Police; and the Library of Congress. With outlays from prior-years and other completed actions, the Senate bill totals $3.6 billion in budget authority and $3.8 billion in outlays. For discretionary spending, which represents the bulk of the funding in this bill, the Senate bill is $73 million below the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority, and is at its 302(b) allocation for outlays. The Senate bill is $312 million in BA and $130 million in outlays below the President's budget request. In addition to providing appropriations for FY 2004 for the legislative branch, the committee-reported bill contains various supplemental appropriations for FY 2003. The FY 2004 concurrent resolution on the budget, H. Con. Res. 95, established levels for FY 2003 and provided an allocation, pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to the Committee on Appropriations for FY 2003 in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the resolution, see page 130 of H. Rept. 108-71. As a point of information, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act. Section 302(c) provides that it is not in order to consider a bill making appropriations for a fiscal year until the Committee on Appropriations has made the suballocations required by section 302. It appears that the Committee on Appropriations has yet to file 302(b) allocations for 2003. This point of order may be waived, or a ruling of the Chair appealed, with 60 votes. With regard to the emergency 2003 supplemental funding, the conferees did not fund all elements of the President's request, they did not exceed the total amount of his request, as adjusted for the supplemental FEMA appropriations already enacted in July. 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 rise in support of S. 1391, the FY 2004 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. 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 $19.6 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 $4 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. The bill provides $155 million or .8 percent more in discretionary budget authority and $1.0 billion or 5.6 percent more in discretionary outlays than last year's bill. The bill provides $72 million more in discretionary budget authority and $93 million more in discretionary outlays than the President's budget request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be inserted in the Record. I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I rise to honor an Oklahoman who has climbed to the top of his profession. Today, Ken Fergeson, from Altus, OK, is being installed as the American Bankers Association chairman. He is also the chairman of National Bank Commerce in Altus. Ken has been active in the ABA for many years. He has chaired its Government Relations Council, Community Bankers Council, a joint trade association Credit Union Steering Committee and Minbanc Capital Corp., in addition to serving on the board of the Corporation for American Banking. He also served on the ABA Communications Council, Education Foundation and Professional Development Council, and chaired the Oklahoma Banker's Association. After graduating from college Ken began his career at Liberty Bank in Oklahoma City. A native Texan, Ken had interviewed and considered a better job offer from a Houston Bank, but he decided to go with the Liberty job in part because, as he joked, it had cheaper parking. It was at Liberty that Ken first became involved in the ABA and the Oklahoma Bankers Association as well as numerous charitable organizations, trade groups and civic organizations. After leaving Liberty, Ken went on to purchase National Bank Commerce in Altus. At the time of the purchase the 38-year-old father of two didn't have the money to buy the bank, but he knew if he could somehow find it he could make the venture work. So he decided to take some risks that he admits were ``stupid'' in retrospect: he got the biggest loan he could get, sold his house, withdrew his kid's college funds, and issued debentures and subordinated notes. His risk was rewarded as he expanded the bank's markets and customer base. Ken's success has grown over the decades, and for good reason. He conducts business with one concern in mind: What is best for the customer? He understands that a bank that conducts business in this manner will retain customers for life. Ken tells his employees not to ``sell anything you wouldn't sell your mother.'' Many today will see this mentality as old fashioned, but you can't argue with success. When Ken was approached by his daughter about her desire to be a foreign missionary, his response was telling of his view of his business. He encouraged her to come to work for the bank. Ken noted that there is no greater mission field than the ``ministry of banking.'' In his own words he explains that the banking industry helps people ``plan for their children's education, or buy their first home, or plan for retirement, or expand a business. If those outcomes are not a ministry, I don't know what is.'' The next chairman of the ABA will bring this experience and worldview to bear upon his new post. He plans on making ethics a central theme of his chairmanship. Ken believes that in life and in business you need a set of ethics to live by so that when tough decisions come your way, you will have a moral reference point to help you reach a conclusion. I am excited about Ken's chairmanship and the ideas and values he will bring to the table. I extend my sincere congratulations to Ken and his family and I wish him all the best as he takes his new post.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield to me?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote no on this resolution. By using the Congressional Review Act, which I worked on and helped pass with my colleague and friend Senator Reid from Nevada, we would totally throw out the entire FCC regulation. Some people disagree with parts of the regulation, but we would be throwing out the entire regulation. The Senator from Arizona said let's do this the old-fashioned way. Let's have hearings and mark up a bill so there is a bill that is going through the authorizing committee and there is also some language going through the Appropriations Committee. Maybe those are better and more appropriate vehicles than the Congressional Review Act, which rejects the entire regulation. What about the cross ownership rules? Cross-ownership rules say if one has a newspaper, they cannot own a TV station, or vice versa. Well, unless they were grandfathered years ago, they could, but if they are new in the business, they cannot own both. The ban on cross ownership was modified on sound reasoning and solid evidence. The antiquated ban should not be reinstated. My colleague from Nevada, who is now presiding, said things have changed. We now have thousands of radio stations. We have lots of opportunities. We have new vehicles. We have the internet. We have cable. We have lots of opportunities for people to get their news from a variety of sources. If we throw out these rules, we are almost saying we want to live by and maintain those old rules, which really are archaic and do not work. This is too Draconian of a measure, to throw out the regs in their entirety. I urge our colleagues to vote no on the resolution.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2754, the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. 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 $27.3 billion in discretionary budget authority and $27.3 billion in discretionary outlays in fiscal year 2004 for the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Corps of Engineers. The bill is $1 million below the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority and $47 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. The bill provides $511 million more in budget authority and $483 million more in outlays than the President's budget request, and $1.2 billion in budget authority and $1.8 billion in outlays more than the 2003 enacted level. I am concerned that there may be an amendment to add $125 million in emergency funding for the Corps of Engineers. This amendment, if offered, will have a Budget Act violation and I will not be able to support it. 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. I urge the adoption of the bill as it was reported from committee.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Amendment No. 1522 by the Senator from Pennsylvania increases spending by $1.5 billion. This additional spending would cause the underlying bill to exceed the subcommittee's section 302(b) allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302 of the Budget Act.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I regret I am going to make a budget point of order because the amendment that is pending busts the budget, and it busts the budget by $1.5 billion. First, I congratulate Senator Specter for the work he has done up to this point. He saved the taxpayers a lot of money. There have been a lot of amendments. I will just mention those. We have totaled those, the total for 2004. Senator Specter has made points of order, all of which were sustained, that saved $24.481 billion in 2004--over a 10- year period, $352 billion--by basically staying with the budget. This amendment breaks the budget. This amendment breaks the budget deal that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee negotiated with the President of the United States. It breaks the budget that we passed overwhelmingly--that we passed after a lot of hard work. Are we going to have a budget or not have a budget? This amendment says we are going to add $1.5 billion for NIH and declare it an emergency; i.e., we don't expect it to count on the budget. In other words, we don't want the budget to apply. If we follow that analogy, it is like some of the other amendments that were offered. Several people offered amendments that just said let's take money from 2004 and put it in 2003 and therefore we will have money for 2004. It was a sham. We defeated all those. If we do not defeat this amendment, the budget is a sham. We will just say something is an emergency that is not an emergency. We appropriate money to NIH. We have done so. I happen to be a supporter of NIH. I have supported increasing money substantially to NIH over the years. Looking back, in 1990 we spent actually $7.5 billion on NIH. In 2004, under the budget that we have, without this amendment we are spending right at $28 billion. That is three and a half times what we spent in 1990. In 1998, when we said we were going to double it, we did. In 1998, we were spending $13.6 billion for NIH, and the budget we have before us is almost $28 billion--more than double since 1998. Those are enormous growth rates, maybe exceeding almost any other Government program. Maybe we need to slow that rate of growth down just a little bit because now we don't have big surpluses. When we were doubling the program, we had some surpluses. Now we have a big deficit. Maybe we should do a little bit better job of oversight. I noticed there was a report. I remember, on ``CBS News'' the headline was ``NIH Microbiologist Gets Paid $100,000 By Taxpayers To Do Nothing.'' It was reported in the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record, an article that was in the Post on July 4.

Mr. NICKLES. Basically, the headline is ``NIH Scientist Says He's Paid To Do Nothing; Agency Denies Administrator's `Surreal Situation' Of Collecting $100,000 Salary For No Work.'' The story goes on. I remember reading it, and I thought, whoa, somebody is not paying attention. Please don't get me wrong. I know NIH does a lot of great work and I am supportive of that. But right now we have to live within a budget. If the committee wanted to--the committee has $127 billion in discretionary spending--they could have given NIH more money. They had control over that $127 billion. They could have shifted it around to where NIH would get more. What the committee elected to do was: We will short fund NIH and we will give a lot more money for a lot of other things, and then we will try to run the gamut because we know NIH has a lot of support. I think the committee needs to go back and say: Wait a minute, the budget is $127 billion. It happens to be the largest budget of any that we have before any committee, with the exception of Defense. If you added all the mandatories to it, it is bigger than Defense. It is a total of $460-some billion. I urge my colleagues, if they want to get more money for NIH, let's have the committee go back and reallocate out of the $127 billion they have under the budget. But let's live with the budget. Let's not declare something that is funded every year by appropriations an emergency; i.e., when we declare an emergency, it doesn't count on the budget. If we are going to use the emergency game as a way of violating the budget, let's just not have a budget. We passed the budget through both Houses. We said you had to have 60 votes in the Senate to declare an emergency. Our colleagues who are supporting this amendment I have great belief sincerely support NIH, but they underfunded it in their committee in relationship to other things and now they want to say let's just declare an emergency and get around it so we will have more money. I don't think they should get away with that. That is violating the agreement, the budget we passed. It violates the agreement we made with the President of the United States. So I urge my colleagues to support me in my effort to sustain the budget. Mr. President, I will be making a budget point of order.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield to my colleague, but I am not quite finished. Pursuant to section 502(c)(5) of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation provision contained in the amendment.