Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I remind my friend and colleague from Alaska--he is my friend--we had an agreement on $784 billion. The Senator from Alaska has an initial $5 billion on top of that. The agreement was $784 billion. The Senator from Alaska got $3 billion from defense for other items; then an additional $2.2 billion on top of that. A deal is a deal. If people do not want to waive the Budget Act, we don't have to have a budget. I tell my colleagues that if the VA-HUD bill wants to bust the budget by declaring an emergency, we can bust the budget all day long. Why have a budget? They want to bust the budget by another $1.5 billion. I am sure every other committee would love to. Why have a budget if you are just going to say: Wait a minute; for an appropriated item we don't have enough money. We want more, and we will declare an emergency. It doesn't count. Now this year you will go to conference with the House with different figures. We are going to have the same figures so we can finish the bills on time. I am just disappointed in the statement of my colleague from Alaska. I believe a deal is a deal and a budget is a budget. It takes 60 votes to waive the budget. If our colleagues elect to waive it, I guess that will be their choice. This Senator hopes that we will not do it. The NIH gets an additional $1 billion this year. Maybe that is not enough, as some would like, but the committee had $127 billion to allocate. They could have allocated that in any way they wanted. They had great discretion. We give great discretion to the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee to allocate the $127 billion. Yet it looks as if, well, the NIH didn't do as well as many other accounts. Maybe that was on purpose. I don't know. I do know the total exceeds the budget that we passed. It exceeds the agreement we made with the President of the United States. It would say that $1.5 billion is an emergency for NIH. This is normally an appropriated item. There is nothing emergency whatsoever. I urge my colleagues to sustain the budget point of order and not to waive the budget.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2004 provides $137.6 billion in discretionary budget authority and $134.9 billion in discretionary outlays for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies. These amounts are both precisely at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. This is an increase of 2.3 percent in discretionary budget authority and 6.8 percent in discretionary outlays above the 2003 enacted levels. Including mandatory spending, the bill provides a total of $370.7 billion in new budget authority and $294.6 billion in new outlays in Fiscal Year 2004. With outlays from prior years and other completed actions, the Senate bill totals $456.4 billion in budget authority and $453.6 billion in outlays. The committee-reported bill also shifts $2.2 billion in 2004 advance appropriations back to fiscal year 2003, pursuant to an agreement with the administration. These advance appropriations were originally provided in the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill to avoid circumventing the 2003 spending limits, an action which the President previously objected to when he signed that legislation. The purpose of this shift is to allow for $2.2 billion in additional nondefense discretionary spending in 2004 without exceeding the budget resolution's discretionary spending limit. However, since the budget resolution set forth discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, this shift causes the committee-reported bill to exceed the 2003 spending cap by $2.2 billion. Thus, a point of order lies against the bill which may be waived with 60 votes. Finally, it is also important to note that the bill which effectuates the advance appropriations shift must be signed into law before the beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2003, in order for it to count for budget scoring purposes. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, section 403 of H. Con. Res. 95, the FY 2004 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make adjustments to the allocation of budget authority and outlays to the Senate Committee on Finance, provided certain conditions are met. Pursuant to section 403, I hereby submit the revisions to H. Con. Res. 95, and I ask unanimous consent that the revisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleague from New Hampshire, the chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, if he shares my understanding that the sense of Congress contained title 7, section 714, of the Energy bill, H.R. 6, dealing with project labor agreements, is exclusive to the natural gas transportation construction project in the State of Alaska under this title?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to further clarify, I ask my colleague, should the inclusion of this provision be seen as a break from the longstanding tradition of Federal Government neutrality in labor- management relations?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his view on this important labor law clarification. energy tax incentives

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in this country of unique opportunity and personal liberty, there are people who use their talents and abilities to help others. Many of these men and women go unnoticed or unappreciated in spite of their many selfless deeds. I rise to honor a native Oklahoman who not only rose to the challenge of God's calling in his life, but was one of the greatest visionaries and faithful servants of our time. Dr. Bill Bright, a native of Coweta, Oklahoma, experienced something that, to many of us seems surreal: he was educated in a one-room schoolhouse for over 9 years! He graduated from Oklahoma's Northeastern State University in 1944, where he was known for his keen academic rigor and ability. Bill married his high school sweetheart, the former Vonetta Zachary, and moved to southern California to begin a successful confections company. Although he could have made a fortune with his small but promising empire, Bill knew that he was called to a higher purpose. Bill Bright answered that call when he found Campus Crusade for Christ. Known to many for his vigorous passion for spreading the Gospel, it is not difficult to understand why he achieved such international popularity. Today, Campus Crusades for Christ has over 26,000 employees and over 225,000 volunteers spanning 191 countries. His movie, JESUS, a documentary on the life of Jesus Christ, has been viewed by 5.1 billion people, which is roughly 5/6 of the present world population. Although these are undeniable great accomplishments, a true leader demonstrates by example. And that is Bill Bright. In 1996, Bill was presented with the prestigious Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, for his work with fasting and prayer. Worth more than 1 million dollars, Bill gave every penny of it to organizations that helped him to win that award--those promoting spiritual benefits of fasting and prayer. My friend Bill Bright demonstrated the qualities of a true spiritual American leader. Considering his roots and his achievements, I venture to say Dr. Bill Bright is the evangelical Horatio Alger story of the last half-century. Those of us who have been touched by this wonderful man will certainly miss him, but one thing is for sure--Bill Bright's vision and legacy will live on. He has made a positive difference for our state and country and I am certain helped countless individuals find eternal happiness.

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 July 28, 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 $1.833 billion in budget authority and by $2.985 billion in outlays in 2003. Current level for revenues is $1 million below the budget resolution in 2003. Since my last report, dated July 3, 2003, the Congress has cleared and the President has signed the following acts that changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues: the Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-29), the Welfare Reform Extension Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-40), and the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act (P.L. 108-61). I ask unanimous consent to print a cover letter and attached tables in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1372

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2555, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. I want to commend the distinguished chairman and the ranking member for bringing the Senate a spending bill within the Subcommittees' 302(b) allocation. Moreover, they and their staffs need to be congratulated on reporting the very first Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The pending bill provides $29.4 billion in total budget authority and $30.6 billion in total outlays for fiscal year 2004. For discretionary spending the Senate bill is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. The Senate bill is $1.4 billion in BA and outlays above the President's budget request. The pending bill funds the programs 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. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1382, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, 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 $369.2 billion in budget authority and $389.9 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2004 for the Department of Defense. Of these totals, $528 million is for mandatory programs. The bill provides $368.637 billion in discretionary budget authority, $25 billion less than the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. The bill provides $389.371 billion in discretionary outlays, $16 million below the 302(b) allocation. Pursuant to an agreement with the administration, the bill provides $3.062 billion less budget authority than was in the President's Defense budget request. These funds were shifted to other nondefense spending bills. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Alabama for raising an important issue. I hope our colleagues will vote in favor of his amendment for a lot of different reasons. First, this shouldn't be in the urgent supplemental. There is nothing emergency about it. Frankly, we gave AmeriCorps $64 million just last April. Second, it wasn't requested by the administration. You would think if it was urgent it would have been requested. It was not. Third, when you look at this, it is really funding for 2004. We only have 2\1/2\ months left in 2003. The Congressional Budget Office says zero money will be spent in 2003. Not one dime of it will be spent in 2003. As a matter of fact, if you look at language in the bill, it says $100 million in funds and grants will remain available until September 30, 2004, and funds for educational awards will remain available until expended. So the net essence of this is we are helping out 2004 appropriations bills. This should be done in 2004. If we want to have a wrestling match over mismanagement of AmeriCorps--and I don't doubt they have had mismanagement--this is a program that purports to be all volunteer, but we find out it costs $20,000 per year per volunteer. Actually, I think it has come down to $18,000 per year per volunteer. Congratulations. It has been fraught with mismanagement from the get-go, and now we find out we are going to be basically funding a 2004 appropriations bill under the guise of an emergency so it will not be counted for 2003. I am willing to go along with some emergency spending, but I think this is an abuse of the process. I compliment my colleague from Alabama. I do not think it should be included in the supplemental. I urge my colleagues to support his amendment.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1357, the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, 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 $9.2 billion in new budget authority and $2.6 billion in new outlays in fiscal year 2004 for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense. With outlays from prior years and other completed actions, the Senate bill totals $9.2 billion in budget authority and $10.3 billion in outlays. All funds provided in this bill are discretionary spending. The bill is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority and $24 million in outlays below the 302(b) allocation. The bill provides $39 million less budget authority and $3 million more outlays than was in 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 at the conclusion of my remarks. I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Virginia for his statement and his persistence. I remember him pushing this amendment last year. I was privileged to cosponsor the amendment. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES. I compliment my colleague from Virginia for his efforts.

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I believe the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, may wish to speak. I am not positive about that but I reserve 5 minutes for him since this deals with the committee of which he is chairman.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am willing to yield back the remainder of my time, if all sides are, and proceed to the votes.

Mr. NICKLES. I raise a budget point of order against the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. It increases mandatory spending and, if adopted, would cause an increase in the deficit in excess of the level permitted in the most recently adopted budget resolution. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 505 of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the bill we are trying to amend is the State Department authorization bill. The amendment Senator Murray has offered is an unemployment compensation amendment. One that, I might add, we have not marked up or had a hearing on in the Finance Committee. I might also add, one that we have already voted on four times this year. We have defeated it every time. In May, we passed an unemployment compensation extension that costs about $7 billion. We continued the current program. It lasts through the end of the year. Senator Murray's amendment wants to double the program from 13 weeks of Federal temporary assistance to 26 weeks. Her State already gets 65 weeks of combined State and Federal benefits, and has maximum benefits of about $500 per week. There is a budget point of order because it breaks the budget and spends billions of dollars. I made that budget point of order and I urge my colleagues not to waive the budget point of order.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray amendment. I urge our colleagues to vote no on the amendment. Just for the information of our colleagues and the sponsor of the amendment, I will make a budget point of order. Not only does it violate the budget, but it also violates, I am going to say, the spirit of the Senate. We are supposed to be working on a State Department authorization bill. Every Senator knows this amendment does not belong on this bill. Yet some people say: Oh, we are going to put it on this bill. It is ridiculous. It is not like we have not voted on this before. Just last May we passed an extension of unemployment compensation that takes us through the end of the year. It costs about $7 billion. We passed it overwhelmingly. It is a clean extension. We have passed clean extensions in the past, but it seems like, for the last year and a half, a lot of colleagues say: Well, we don't want to pass a clean extension of unemployment benefits. And by that I mean a Federal unemployment assistance, which is temporary. Most States provide 26 weeks of benefits. I believe Massachusetts has 30 weeks, but most States have 26 weeks of unemployment comp. And then there is a Federal program of 13 weeks that is temporary. The Murray amendment would make that 26 weeks for certain people. It would double the Federal temporary assistance. That is very expensive. It costs billions of dollars. I have opposed that and the Senate has opposed it. As a matter of fact, we voted on it four times this year. We voted on it on January 22, March 25, May 15, and then May 23. We have defeated doubling this program. Yet here we are again trying to double it on a State Department reauthorization bill. It does not belong on this bill. It violates the budget. Some States even get more than 52 weeks, including the State of Washington. Most States get 26 weeks of State aid, 13 weeks Federal. And high unemployment States--and there are a few--get another 13 weeks of federal aid. So a few States already get 52 weeks. Some States that really have high unemployment, including the State of Washington, get another 13 weeks. That is a total of 65 weeks. That is over a year. It is almost like no matter what program we have, we have to have more. This is a lot of money. I believe I heard my colleague say that benefits average about $260 per week. That is correct. Some States are up to $500-plus per week. And, yes, in some cases it might be paid for over a year. In this amendment, it will all be paid for by the Federal Government. I think there has to be a limit. That is why we have budgets. This would break the budget. But more important than that, it does not belong on this bill. This is the fifth time we are going to vote on this. Maybe people think they are scoring political points on this issue. I don't know. It does not belong on this bill. At the appropriate time, I will make a budget point of order and urge my colleagues not to agree to this amendment. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. NICKLES. For the information of colleagues, I don't believe the UC had an order. It lists Senators. I can't do it right now.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I wish to compliment my colleague, Senator Sessions from Alabama, for raising this amendment. I urge our colleagues to support it. I tell my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, that I understand the publicity that AmeriCorps has received because it has not been managed properly. But this does not belong in this bill. The urgent supplemental for 2003 is to help pressing needs which has to be done now and that can't wait until the 2004 appropriations process. I have great confidence that the Senator from Alaska and our colleagues in the House are going to finish appropriations bills on time. They will be done by the end of September. But this particular provision says there is $100 million and it will be available to be spent through the end of 2004. Incidentally, the educational awards granted after people provide voluntary paid services--kind of a contradiction in terms--but after they provide their public service, they are entitled to reap educational awards equaling about $5,000 per year; that is, for future--that should be dealt with in the 2004 bill. It shouldn't be dealt with now. It doesn't belong on this bill. In April, we gave AmeriCorps $64 million. There has been some mismanagement, obviously. But we knew about that in April. We gave them $64 million in April. How much is enough? If this is not going to be spent in 2003 and the Congressional Budget Office, which is our budget arm, says this money isn't going to be spent in 2003--they say most of it won't be spent in 2004. I think what has happened is some people have read some articles and got excited, saying we will be able to slip this in and we will have an extra $100 million to spend for next year and we will do it under the guise of an emergency. That requires 60 votes. We just gave them $64 million additional money in April. If we find out that this money is available to be spent anytime up through the end of next year, it is really a 2004 appropriation. It doesn't belong in a 2003 urgent supplemental bill that we use for fire, for FEMA, and for real emergencies. It doesn't fit that definition. It wasn't requested by the administration. I will make a couple of other comments on the program. When we talk about wanting to encourage and help volunteers, this program costs about $18,000 per year per participant. That is a lot of money. When we talk about volunteers, we are talking about a cost that is very high. It has payments to the individual, it has payments for daycare, it has payments for health care, and it has educational assistance of about $1,000 per year. It ranges from $20,000 to $18,000 per person. That is a lot of money to be paying for ``volunteers'' to do a lot of services that, frankly, most people do for free or most people donate for charity. Most people volunteer and are not paid. I just make these comments. This is a program that has run amuck and that has not been well managed. Now we are rewarding that poor management and doing it under the guise of emergency in 2003 when we only have 2\1/2\ months left in this fiscal year and we are going to add $100 million. CBO estimates that every single dollar of this will be spent not in 2003 but in 2004 or 2005 or later. To try to stick it in under the guise of emergency for 2003 is very inappropriate. I think it violates the whole spirit of what we call an ``emergency.'' I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment of Senator Sessions. I might also mention this jeopardizes some things. I want us to be very frugal when we use emergency designations because we shouldn't be doing that. When we say it is an emergency, we are saying that basically the budget doesn't fly, we don't need a budget, and we are going to have emergencies. But we have a higher threshold of 60 votes for emergency spending. This is thrown in the same category of emergencies, FEMA and firefighting. I don't think that is correct. I don't think that is right. The best way to solve it would be to adopt Senator Sessions' amendment. I urge our colleagues to do so when we vote on his amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Maryland yield for a question?

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend from Maryland. I am looking at the language. It says the funds for AmeriCorps, on page 54: . . . with the funds for grants to remain available until September 30, 2004, and funds for educational awards to remain available until expended. . . . Correct me if I am wrong. Almost none of this money will be spent in 2003, and this basically is an appropriation for 2004. Why don't we do this in the 2004 bill instead of now? It doesn't seem to me to fit into the definition of assistance. We only have 2\1/2\ months left in fiscal year 2003. I don't know why we are doing this amendment on this urgent supplemental. I don't think it fits that definition. Could you tell me, is any of this money going to be spent in 2003, and why isn't this really an appropriation for 2004?

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I want to make a statement, if my colleague from Maryland is finished. I want to speak on the amendment.