Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.

Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.

Mr. NICKLES. This has been a very interesting dialog, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this bill. Yesterday we made a unanimous consent request to pass a clean extension of unemployment compensation. The House has now passed a bill. We will ask unanimous consent again to pass a clean extension of unemployment compensation.

Mr. NICKLES. I will not yield. We have voted on this three times already this year. Some people on the other side say this is such a great issue, we are just going to get to vote on it a lot, and so now they offer it on a debt limit bill. Incidentally, they happen to know the House has already left. They know we have to pass a clean debt limit bill. They know a budget point of order lies against it. They know it is nothing but political gamesmanship. I told our colleagues yesterday that they jeopardized passing a clean extension of unemployment comp. We could have done it yesterday. I hope we can do it today. Instead, they do not want to pass just a clean extension, they want to increase the program. This amendment we are looking at today is a little different than the amendment we looked at last time. It has not had a hearing. It has not been vetted. It is not the bill that passed the House. The House has already left town. So if my colleagues want to do something to help people who are losing their unemployment compensation, they have to pass the House bill--and they are not in session, they have left. So we----

Mr. NICKLES. No, I am not yielding. If we take this modification, this change, on the debt limit bill, it will complicate the debt limit bill. If we amend unemployment comp that we are going to try to pass later by unanimous consent, that will not pass. We want to provide assistance to them, and we can pass a clean extension for the next 7 months. That happens to be nearly the same thing the Senator from New York and I did in January. It happens to be nearly the same thing the Senator from New York and I did last November. So if my colleagues want to help people who have lost their unemployment benefits, we can pass a clean extension. We are not going to pass a major expansion, as this amendment would propose. This amendment would allow some people to receive 59 weeks of benefits--of unemployment comp. We are not going to do it. I will tell my colleagues that right now. So they can make all the speeches they want, but some of us want to pass this bill and move on. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just for the information of our colleagues, I think we stated this before, but I want to repeat it. It is our intention to ask unanimous consent to pass the House-passed bill on unemployment compensation upon completion of the debt limit extension. It is also our intention again to ask unanimous consent to pass the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Senate would not curtail COLAs. No one was planning on doing it, but because we had an amendment earlier I think we want to clarify that. We will pass both of those on freestanding items upon completion of the debt limit extension.

Mr. NICKLES. Just to repeat, I tried to do that yesterday, and the Senator from Massachusetts objected--or somebody from the other side of the aisle objected. I just want to make that point as well. Some of us tried to pass a clean extension yesterday and I urged my colleagues to do it and it was objected to. Now we have had a couple of votes. I hope we can clear it and will pass the House-passed bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, 15 minutes on that side. How much on this side?

Mr. NICKLES. Ten minutes on this side would be more than sufficient.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the concerns of my friend and colleague from Nevada about being able to find legislators who have wondered afar from the legislative field. We did have a slight invasion in our State by a few Democrat legislators who were somewhat fretting but I am happy to report they returned safely to the State of Texas, much to the appreciation of both States.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I inquire of my colleagues--I am going to make a budget point of order shortly. You have not used all your time. I will not use all our time. Maybe we can move forward a little quicker. Is there anybody else on your side who wishes to speak?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will proceed. She is not on the floor right now. Mr. President, first a couple comments. I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Feingold in the Budget Committee and on several occasions on the floor, and we have shared an interest, at various times, being a coalition, trying to curb the growth of Federal spending. I say that to my colleague. I appreciate his work and how sincere he is with this amendment and with budget process. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I will tell you, budget process should come through the Budget Committee. The Senator has an amendment. It is not perfect. It needs to be improved. It needs to go through the Budget Committee. Actually, the Budget Act says it should go through the Budget Committee. I would like to consult with all Members--Democrats and Republicans-- on budget reform. I think we need budget reform, both in process and in implementation. Now, in pay-go, a lot of people get confused, but we actually have pay-go in Senate rules, and we used to have statutory pay-go. One is in the statutes of the United States Code. One is in Senate rules. We have pay-go in Senate rules. We had--past tense--pay-go in the statutes. I am willing to reinstate pay-go and maybe change the way it is drafted to some extent. The former chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, is in the Chamber, and he utilized it, but the statute had not been utilized very often in the past. It was very seldom. It actually had a sequester. It was hardly ever used. Maybe the threat of it is worthwhile, but, anyway, it had not been used. We also have pay-go in Senate rules. That has been used quite frequently. So I just make the comment that we need some budgetary changes in rules. I think we certainly do. The way that the budgets are managed with the vote-aramas--we ended up having 51 votes, most of which were stacked in the last day or so of the management of the budget--I think is demeaning to the Senate. The same thing in reconciliation; and that actually is done under the budget procedure. Again, we had a limited number of hours for consideration of the reconciliation bill and then a vote-arama. Again, maybe it is not the best way to be considering legislation of such importance. So I am willing to work with my colleagues on both sides, and I appreciate the interest of the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Wisconsin in passing budget reform, and I will work with them. If we do a bill dealing with budget reform, in my opinion, it is going to take bipartisan support. I see the former chairman of the Budget Committee. It is going to take a bipartisan effort or it will not happen. I recognize that. I realize that. I happen to think there are enough of us around wrestling with budgets who know that procedures need to be improved. We also want them to be effective: To have a Budget Act with enforcement, but not have it be ineffective, i.e, you can waive it on account of emergency, you can waive it on a lot of things where they are not effective. We do not want to do that. We want to be effective in exhibiting some discipline. I might also mention, just for the information of our colleagues, in the budget we did pass there is a direction to all the authorizing committees to report back to the Budget Committee by September 2 for ideas on curbing wasteful spending, with at least a target of 1 percent. I mentioned this to some of my colleagues, and I will mention it on the floor, because some authorizers are going to say: Wait a minute. What are you doing telling us to come up with some savings? But a lot of programs have waste or fraud or accounting errors that need to be stopped. The House actually had a mandatory cut. We ended up saying: Well, we are going to request the committees to report back to us. We expect and look forward to their cooperation. We did not do anything in this last year's budget, frankly, on entitlements. We probably should. We need to look at all Federal spending. We need to eliminate waste. It bothers me to look at a program, such as the earned income tax credit, and have Treasury report back to us that 30 percent of the program is a mistake--some of it fraud, some of it a mistake, accounting errors, you name it. We should not have programs which are that wasteful, that much of a mistake. We need to improve management of our Government. I told the former chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, that I hope to do a lot of oversight to make Government work better. We will be doing some of that as well. I say to my colleagues, I do not believe this amendment on the debt limit--without going through the committee--is the proper approach. So, Mr. President, I am going to make a point of order that the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, contains matter-- Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. I am not going to ask for the vote now.

Mr. NICKLES. I will withhold. I was not going to push for the vote on it until you completed your time. I will make the point of order. I know Senator Domenici wishes to speak, as well. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, contains matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget, and the underlying bill was not reported from the committee. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. I make that point of order, and I now wish for the Senator to complete his time. I also ask that----

Mr. NICKLES. I say to the Senator, you can use your time. You can move to waive, and we can still debate.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask to modify that request, and that the Senator from New Mexico be entitled to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if this amendment were adopted, it would more than complicate the debt limit extension. We have already mentioned that. Senators are aware of that. I have already said I will work with members of the committee. I will work with other Members for budget process reform. I welcome ideas and input. We can do a better job. Under present law, if this passed, for those people who have an interest in passing a prescription drug bill, it won't happen. The budget resolution says we can have a prescription drug bill within $400 billion reported by the Finance Committee. A budget point of order would not lie against it. If this amendment passed, every penny of it would have to be paid for with either revenue increases or cuts, presumably in Medicare or Medicaid. My guess is you would not have it. I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from New Mexico, who was chairman or ranking member of the Budget Committee for 25 years.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I have just a couple of comments. This resolution says please don't cut cost-of-living adjustments on Social Security. No one in either House--either body--contemplated cutting COLAs. Our colleague from Wyoming said we are willing to pass this but pass it freestanding--not as an amendment to the debt limit. Just so we know what the facts are, the House worked really late last night--until 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning, and they have left town. So we have to pass a debt limit clean. If we don't pass it clean, you are jeopardizing Social Security. You are jeopardizing Medicare. We should do exactly what the Senator from Wyoming said. Let us pass this freestanding and not as an amendment to the debt limit. The Senator from Wyoming asked unanimous consent to pass this separately from the debt limit. That was objected to by the Democrat leader. I will just tell our colleagues that it is our intention to table this amendment at this point, because for whatever reason--political purposes--they want a rollcall vote. Just to tell our colleagues, when we conclude passage of the debt limit, we will pass this freestanding.

Mr. NICKLES. I object.

Mr. NICKLES. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on occasion it sounds as if we are redebating the budget. That is not what we are debating. We are debating a growth package. The fact is, last year we did not have a budget. This year we do have a budget. This year we have a tax bill to help grow the economy. Some of my colleagues on the Democratic side offered a tax bill as well. It was $152 billion. This tax bill is $316 billion. It is not even $350 billion. I keep hearing it is $350 billion, but there is about $34 billion in spending. One of the amendments passed with 97 votes. It did not have my vote. My point is, it is a $316 billion tax cut over 10 years. Over those 10 years, we are going to have revenues of about $25 trillion, $26 trillion. We did load it upfront because we want to have as much economic impact as we possibly can. The economy is very soft, and we wanted to grow the economy. We did things to help encourage investments and jobs. We were taxing capital investment far too much. We tax dividends higher than any country in the world. That is absurd. Basically, we are cutting the dividend tax a little bit more than half. We did not do as well, in my opinion, as we did in the Senate. That is part of the compromise. We took part of the House provision. We are going to tax capital gains at 15 percent and tax dividends at 15 percent. I think there is common sense in taxing both at that level. I heard someone say there is nothing in here for low-income people. That is not true. A couple who have two kids get $800 additional in child credit. If they have a combined income of $56,000, they get another $1,200 in marriage penalty relief. That is $2,000. So if someone says that is nothing, that may mean their tax bracket, one, does not exceed 15 percent and also, percentagewise, it is probably well over half their tax liability. I just make those points. We also accelerated the rates, as we should. I keep hearing this is a tax cut for the wealthy. The maximum tax rate in 1992 was 31 percent. When we are done with this, the maximum tax rate is going to be 35 percent--still significantly higher, still about 13 percent higher than it was in 1991. We hear all this demagoguery of class warfare and people trying to play on other people. I disagree. The State aid program is $20 billion. I want to make sure everybody understands that this is a temporary program--I want that in the Record for--for the States. I have a feeling States may be coming a year from now saying: We need this to be extended, either the FMAP portion or assistance going directly to the States. All persons who sponsored this and were critical for getting it in this bill said it is temporary. It is temporary. It shall not be extended. Everyone agreed to that--House and Senate. The House did not want it in. Many on this side did not want it in. We agreed to have it in have as a temporary program. I wanted to allude to that. Finally, I compliment Senator Grassley for his leadership because, without his leadership, we would not have had this bill. We might not have had a budget. Frankly, we have a budget, and we have a bill. Many people are throwing rocks and stones saying this is terrible. We do have a budget, and we are trying to do a growth package. We are doing a growth package just about double what the Democrats proposed, except the Democrats in their growth package proposed almost all spending. I think three- fourths is spending. This package has real incentives for growth, investment, and jobs. Let's help the economy. The economy is far too soft. We want to encourage the economy to grow. I think this proposal will do that. Again, I thank my colleague from Iowa for his leadership in making that happen. I also thank our leader, Senator Frist. This has been a challenging process to get both the budget and reconciliation through. We did the budget on time, almost in record time, and this reconciliation bill is the earliest I have seen Congress act. We should act because the economy is soft now. It needs assistance. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, over the past few weeks we have seen dramatic proof that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is over and that a new day is dawning for the Iraqi people. President Bush has announced that major military combat operations in Iraq have ended, and that America and her Allies are turning our efforts toward helping the Iraqi people build a free society. Like many Americans, I was thrilled and heartened by the dramatic images of U.S. troops helping Iraqi citizens tear down statues and paintings of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people needed our help, our tanks, our troops, and our commitment to topple Saddam Hussein. For the first time in their lives, many Iraqis are tasting freedom, and like people everywhere, they think it is wonderful. I am proud of our military and America's commitment to make the people of the Middle East more free and secure. Our military men and women may face more difficult days in Iraq, and the Iraqi people will be tested by the responsibilities that come with freedom. The thugs who propped up the previous regime and outside forces with goals of their own may cause problems, stir up trouble, and initiate violence. Freedom is messy--nowhere more so than in a country that has just shaken off a brutal dictatorship. But today I rise to honor a man who made the ultimate sacrifice one can make for his country. LCpl Thomas Alan Blair was Oklahoma's first known casualty in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This 24-year old Broken Arrow native was killed on March 23 in a fierce battle near Nasiriyah when an enemy rocket propelled grenade hit his amphibious assault vehicle. Tommy graduated from Broken Arrow High School in 1997 but had decided long before then that he would be a marine. He chose his career nearly a decade ago when he watched his older brother SSgt Al Blair graduate from boot camp. In a way he followed in his brother's footsteps, but his family will tell you that he would have been a marine no matter what. His brother recalled that Tommy ``truly wanted to help people.'' As we watch the dawn of a new day in Iraq, let us never forget that the freedom we enjoy every day in America is bought at a price. Lance Corporal Blair did not die in vain. He died so that many others could live freely. For that sacrifice, we are forever indebted. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family today and with the troops who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq. Mr. President, recently we have seen dramatic proof that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is over and that a new day is dawning for the Iraqi people. President Bush has announced that major military combat operations in Iraq have ended, and that America and her Allies are turning our efforts toward helping the Iraqi people build a free society. Like many Americans, I was thrilled and heartened by the dramatic images of U.S. troops helping Iraqi citizens tear down statues and paintings of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people needed our help, our tanks, our troops, and our commitment to topple Saddam Hussein. For the first time in their lives, many Iraqis are tasting freedom, and like people everywhere, they think it is wonderful. I am proud of our military and America's commitment to make the people of the Middle East more free and secure. Our military men and women may face more difficult days in Iraq, and the Iraqi people will be tested by the responsibilities that come with freedom. The thugs who propped up the previous regime and outside forces with goals of their own may cause problems, stir up trouble and initiate violence. Freedom is messy--nowhere more so than in a country that has just shaken off a brutal dictatorship. But today I rise to honor a man who made the ultimate sacrifice one can make for his country. LTC Dominic R. Baragona, 42, was stationed at Fort Sill. He was killed in Iraq on May 19, when a tractor-trailer lost control and hit his Humvee near Safwan. Colonel Baragona was assigned to and commander of the 19th Maintenance Battalion. He was deployed to CENTCOM in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 16 with about 100 other members of his battalion. Colonel Baragona's cousin Anthony said, ``wherever they needed him, that's where he went.'' Baragona, like so many of our military men and women, placed the call to duty above self. Our prayers and debt of appreciation now go to his family, who had expected him to come home in June. He is survived by his parents who live in St. George Island, FL. As we watch the dawn of a new day in Iraq, let us never forget that the freedom we enjoy every day in America is bought at a price. Lieutenant Colonel Baragona did not die in vain. He died so that many others could live freely. For that sacrifice, we are forever indebted. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family today and with the troops who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, over the past few weeks we have seen dramatic proof that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is over and that a new day is dawning for the Iraqi people. President Bush has announced that major military combat operations in Iraq have ended, and that America and her Allies are turning our efforts toward helping the Iraqi people build a free society. Like many Americans, I was thrilled and heartened by the dramatic images of U.S. troops helping Iraqi citizens tear down statues and paintings of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people needed our help, our tanks, our troops, and our commitment to topple Saddam Hussein. For the first time in their lives, many Iraqis are tasting freedom, and like people everywhere, they think it is wonderful. I am proud of our military and America's commitment to make the people of the Middle East more free and secure. Our military men and women may face more difficult days in Iraq, and the Iraqi people will be tested by the responsibilities that come with freedom. The thugs who propped up the previous regime and outside forces with goals of their own may cause problems, stir up trouble, and initiate violence. Freedom is messy--nowhere more so than in a country that has just shaken off a brutal dictatorship. But today I rise to honor a man who made the ultimate sacrifice one can make for his country. Sgt Randall Rehn died April 3 amid fierce fighting for control of what is now Baghdad International Airport. He is survived by his wife Raelynn and daughter Megan of Lawton, as well as his family in Colorado. As we watch the dawn of a new day in Iraq, let us never forget that the freedom we enjoy every day in America is bought at a price. Sergeant Rehn did not die in vain. He died so that many others could live freely. For that sacrifice, we are forever indebted. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family today and with the troops who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq. Mr. President, over the past few weeks we have seen dramatic proof that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is over and that a new day is dawning for the Iraqi people. President Bush has announced that major military combat operations in Iraq have ended, and that America and her Allies are turning our efforts toward helping the Iraqi people build a free society. Like many Americans, I was thrilled and heartened by the dramatic images of U.S. troops helping Iraqi citizens tear down statues and paintings of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people needed our help, our tanks, our troops, and our commitment to topple Saddam Hussein. For the first time in their lives, many Iraqis are tasting freedom, and like people everywhere, they think it is wonderful. I am proud of our military and America's commitment to make the people of the Middle East more free and secure. Our military men and women may face more difficult days in Iraq, and the Iraqi people will be tested by the responsibilities that come with freedom. The thugs who propped up the previous regime and outside forces with goals of their own may cause problems, stir up trouble, and initiate violence. Freedom is messy--nowhere more so than in a country that has just shaken off a brutal dictatorship. But today I rise to honor a man who made the ultimate sacrifice one can make for his country. One of eight brothers and sisters, Todd Robbins, 33, who was stationed at Fort Sill, served in the Navy for the first gulf war before joining the Army. He leaves behind a wife at Fort Sill and a 13-year-old son. ``He always wanted to be in the Army,'' said his father Dale Robbins. ``He lived, ate, and slept the Army. He loved it.'' Tragically, the death of Sergeant Robbins was said to be a result of friendly fire in the form of coalition bombs. While our military always works to prevent such accidents, they always occur during war fighting. The fact that his death was accidental in no way diminishes his sacrifice. He gave his life to protect us, and our freedoms, and to make people he had never met, half way around the world, free in their own country. As we watch the dawn of a new day in Iraq, let us never forget that the freedom we enjoy every day in America is bought at a price. Sergeant Robbins did not die in vain. He died so that many others could live freely. For that sacrifice, we are forever indebted. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family today and with the troops who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq. Mr. President, over the past few weeks we have seen dramatic proof that the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is over and that a new day is dawning for the Iraqi people. President Bush has announced that major military combat operations in Iraq have ended, and that America and her Allies are turning our efforts toward helping the Iraqi people build a free society. Like many Americans, I was thrilled and heartened by the dramatic images of U.S. troops helping Iraqi citizens tear down statues and paintings of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people needed our help, our tanks, our troops, and our commitment to topple Saddam Hussein. For the first time in their lives, many Iraqis are tasting freedom, and like people everywhere, they think it is wonderful. I am proud of our military and America's commitment to make the people of the Middle East more free and secure. Our military men and women may face more difficult days in Iraq, and the Iraqi people will be tested by the responsibilities that come with freedom. The thugs who propped up the previous regime and outside forces with goals of their own may cause problems, stir up trouble and initiate violence. Freedom is messy--nowhere more so than in a country that has just shaken off a brutal dictatorship. But today I rise to honor a man who made the ultimate sacrifice one can make for his country. Donald Oaks, who was stationed at Fort Sill, would have turned 21 on April 26. He was a bright young man who was good at math and computers. Also, he enjoyed playing baseball and fishing with his dad. He joined the Army to get money for a college education after his service. His mother Laurie Oaks said, ``He was my best friend and was always my hero. He still is.'' He was engaged to be married. Tragically, the death of Specialist Oaks was said to be a result of friendly fire in the form of coalition bombs. While our military always works to prevent such accidents, they always occur during warfighting. The fact that his death was accidental in no way diminishes his sacrifice. He gave his life to protect us, and our freedoms, and to make people he had never met, halfway around the world, free in their own country. As we watch the dawn of a new day in Iraq, let us never forget that the freedom we enjoy every day in America is bought at a price. Specialist Oaks did not die in vain. He died so that many others could live freely. For that sacrifice, we are forever indebted. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family today and with the troops who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq.