Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I heard the Senator mention a modification, but I have not seen it yet. I am concerned in reading page 15, section 302, about budget scorekeeping, that the Senator is modifying the Budget Act or trying to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. NICKLES. For the Senator's information, none of us has a copy of the modification. This Senator, for one, is going to be very reluctant to agree to anything if we are modifying the budget or waiving the budget.

Mr. NICKLES. I warn my colleague, she cannot be throwing up a modification and saying we want you to accept this when the amendment deals with substantive issues. The amendment deals with entitlements, with issues that are under the Finance Committee jurisdiction. I have made five speeches saying we should not be doing authorizing work on an appropriations bill without the appropriate committees having significant time to review the bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, correct me--parliamentary inquiry--I do not believe there has been a modification agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES. The modification has a tax increase to pay for it, I understand that, but that may have some problems in itself. I want all of our colleagues to know the amendment has not been modified as of yet.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to inform my colleague from New York, at least at this point I have not decided to object to a unanimous consent to modify her amendment, but I am concerned about the amendment. I am concerned about the modification, of which I have just now received a copy. I think I have the first copy on this side of the aisle. These are entitlement changes. They are expensive and they affect a lot of people. I will also tell my colleague from New York, there are a lot of us who have a lot of interest in a whole lot of these provisions. Being on the Finance Committee, I have worked with a lot of provider groups that have an interest in Medicare modifications and updates. This should go through the Finance Committee, and it should be bipartisan. Ninety- some-odd percent of the Medicare adjustments that have ever been made since Medicare's inception have been bipartisan. I might mention that when I read language we are going to waive the budget and/or now we are going to raise taxes, that is not bipartisan; that is not working together. I reserve the right to object on the modification, but I say to my colleagues, this is the type of bill that should have regular order, should go through the committees, should be bipartisan through the committees, with input from all members of those committees, instead of being on an appropriations bill where we have not had a chance to thoroughly analyze it to a greater degree. I think we have some mutual objectives that can be accomplished in short order, but I do not believe this is the right way to do it today.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 89

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senate is not order in order.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I want to make sure from the Senator from New York this is the original proposal, not the modified proposal?

Mr. NICKLES. I urge our colleagues to vote to sustain a budget point of order that I will raise in just a moment. This is a bill that should go through appropriate order, regular order. This is an entitlement program. These are big changes. These are changes we should do in the Finance Committee. These are changes for which we have bipartisan support in the Finance Committee, many, but they have to be worked out. This is an amendment many of us saw just moments ago. It deals with billions of dollars--actually I think it is about $4.1 billion. The chairman of the Finance Committee and also the ranking member of the Finance Committee did a fix for doctors, but there are a lot of other provisions we need to consider, dealing with some of the provisions mentioned by the Senator from New York, but they need to be dealt with in a bipartisan way through the regular order through the committee. If we are going to bypass all the committees all the time, maybe we don't need to have committees. Those on the Finance Committee who have been working on this issue would like to have some input on it as well. Therefore, the pending amendment by Senator Clinton includes an increase in mandatory spending and, if adopted, would certainly increase the deficit. Therefore I raise a point of order pursuant to section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68, the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution as amended by S. Res. 304 from the 107th Congress.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to waive the budget point of order. I am afraid we are going to have to decide this many times, are we going to be waiving the budget every time we turn around? There is a reason a budget point of order lies against this amendment. We are on an appropriations bill. Instead of trying to pass appropriations, some people are saying, let's expand entitlements. It so happens we did this January 7. The Senate unanimously passed a bill to expand unemployment compensation, extend the present law through May, and it cost us about $7.2 billion. Now our colleagues are coming back and saying: This is a 13-week Federal program. Let's make it a 26-week Federal program, except let's even do more. The Federal program today is up to 13 weeks. The bill we have before us says all States get a mandatory 26 weeks. It is not coupled to what the State programs have. We have never done that in the history of the United States. We have always coupled Federal unemployment extensions with the State program. But that is not what this amendment does. The amendment was not drafted well and was not thought out well. It is very expensive. It is about the fifth iteration we have seen, and it is still not done very well. I urge my colleagues, if they want to do it, introduce the bill, have it referred to the appropriate committee, have that committee have hearings on it and mark it up with professional staff to do a good job. This is grossly irresponsible. It would cost $6.3 billion. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Congressional Budget Office letter stating that fact.

Mr. NICKLES. Colleagues, let's have regular order in the Senate. Why have the Finance Committee have jurisdiction over an issue if we are just going to skip the committee and consider it on the floor? Are we going to do this with every authorizing committee: There is an appropriations bill, let's ignore the authorizing committee and come up with all kinds of entitlement expansions. That is the reason a budget point of order lies against this. That budget point of order is well taken. This chairman of the Budget Committee plans on enforcing the budget. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I will ask a quick question. I know my colleague referred to the 1990-1991 recession a couple of three times and alluded to: We did it then. Why do we not do it now? Is the Senator aware of the fact that the unemployment rate was 7 percent or more, compared to the current level of 6 percent, when we passed the Federal unemployment extension in 1990-1991?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak on this issue, but my colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, was in the Chamber prior to my arrival so I will speak after his comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his statement. I hope my colleagues pay attention to it, especially the last part. The chairman of the Finance Committee said this has not gone through the Finance Committee, and pointed out several things that sounded like this is about what we did in the 1990s, but it is not. It is expensive. This is a different proposal than what we have seen. We actually had a similar type of proposal that was debated last year, to which I objected, I believe the Senator from Iowa objected, and maybe the Senator from New Hampshire objected, that was a doubling of the Federal program from 13 to 26 weeks. This is a different iteration of that. It is different--in some cases maybe better, in some cases maybe worse. The one we objected to last year was a $17 or $18 billion program. The proposal now, we understand from the authors--I have not seen this from the Congressional Budget Office, but I respect them and I assume it is correct--says it costs $6.5 billion. Last week, we passed a bill that cost $7.2 billion. So this is $6 billion on top of that. The Senator from Iowa mentioned that this says there would be a mandatory 26-week Federal unemployment compensation program. Present law we passed last week is an extension of up to 13 weeks for all States. There is a big difference in legislative language when you say ``up to'' rather than mandating 26 weeks. One, you are doubling the program, and you also do not keep it connected to the State program. Some States have different durations. We have always been tied to the State program. I keep hearing about what we did in 1990; we want to duplicate what we did in 1990. The chairman of the Finance Committee alluded to the fact that the 1990 unemployment rate was much higher. It was 7 percent, 7.4 percent, 7.8 percent. The unemployment rate today nationwide is 6 percent. We have a lot of States that are substantially lower. We have 24 States that have unemployment rates at or below 5 percent this year--now. We have nine States that have unemployment levels between 2.7 and 4 percent. I remember in my private sector days, if you had unemployment at about 4 percent, you might not be able to hire somebody. So there will always be some who are unemployed because people are changing jobs, they just graduated, they just moved and are temporarily unemployed. There is always a segment of the population temporarily unemployed. Almost half of our States have unemployment rates of 5 percent or less. I mentioned there is a big difference from the language we passed in 1990. In 1990, we did do 26 weeks, but up to 26 weeks. We also had unemployment rates that were over a full point higher. Also, sometimes we want to ask: when are we going to pay attention to the committees of jurisdiction? We are on an appropriations bill, yet we have an amendment that expands entitlements. Even though we extended current law last week, agreeing to spend an additional $7 billion plus, colleagues say: Wait a minute, let's add another $6.5 billion on top of that. We will just do an amendment that should come out of the Finance Committee right now. This is the first time that people will have seen it, and it's different than the proposals we have seen in the past, and we will see if we cannot pass it. It does not belong here. Obviously, my colleagues know the budget point of order lies against this amendment. This proposal has not been introduced as a bill and a committee hearing has not been held, that I know of. Maybe different bills have been introduced. If it is the bill Senator Clinton was talking about introducing, this is not the same bill. There is a reason we should follow regular order. There is a reason we should use the committee of jurisdiction. There is a reason we should have bipartisan cooperation on bills such as this. I am disappointed we are not. In this current recession, we have spent up to $26.25 billion since March of 2001 to help the unemployed. That is almost what we spent in the 1990s. People say: Well, you are not helping; you do not care about the people. That is hogwash. The proposal introduced today by Senator Reed and Senator Durbin is not targeted. Twenty-four States have unemployment of 5 percent or less, but they will get the same benefits as everyone else, except the highest unemployment states get an extra 7 weeks. Then we have the dilemma of, right now, the present requirement is a person only has to work 20 weeks and they can receive as much as 52 weeks in unemployment compensation. That is not a bad deal, especially when you consider 72 percent of workers in a household who are eligible to receive these benefits have another family member who is employed. Think of that: 52 weeks of paid unemployment compensation while in a household where, in 72 percent of those households, there is an employed family member. This is a crummy way to legislate. It doesn't belong on this appropriations bill. We need to finish this appropriations process. We have 11 bills that were not finished last year. We have already finished one-quarter of this present fiscal year and we haven't passed these bills and we need to complete them. If colleagues want to do a change on unemployment compensation, they should introduce a bill, have it referred to an appropriate committee, and ask the chairman for a hearing, ask the chairman for a markup. That is the way business is supposed to be done in the Senate. It is not to try to rewrite entitlement programs. If you can do unemployment compensation, you can do Medicare, you can do Social Security, you can do any other bill, but that is not following the procedure. Senator Stevens has great expertise, but I doubt that controlling or managing unemployment compensation is his area of expertise. That is not what his committee does. That belongs properly in the Finance Committee. We need to start respecting committees' jurisdictions and we have not been doing it. I urge my colleagues, let's not be playing games. Let's not be trying to pass something they know won't pass and they know it will not come out of conference even if they are successful. I don't believe they will be successful. They should not be successful. Mr. President, the pending amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, increases mandatory spend and, if adopted, it would cause an increase in the deficit. Therefore I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000, as amended by S. Res. 304.

Mr. NICKLES. I object.

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, and I shall object, because I think somebody in our conference said they would wish to consult with me so, temporarily, I object.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield? I have a unanimous consent request I would like to enter before the 5 o'clock vote. Order of Procedure Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate considers S. 121, the AMBER Alert bill, Senator Hatch be granted 5 minutes to speak. Therefore, debate on the bill would commence at 5 p.m.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague from Alaska for his leadership on this bill. I have great respect for the Senator from West Virginia, and he is very consistent in wanting to spend more money in this bill. He tried yesterday and didn't win, so now he says, let's eliminate the reductions across the board. The net impact of that would be $11.4 billion this year. You might say that also would increase the base that we put in the budget, so that would be compounded every year, so this amendment would cost at least $120 billion assuming no inflation--probably closer to $140- or $150 billion--over those years. I have heard my colleague say we are cutting the FBI. The FBI went from $3.4 billion to $4.1 if you add the two accounts together. I heard my colleague say they are cutting the NIH. That went from $27.2 billion and received a $3.8 billion increase. I just heard my colleague say we are cutting the VA; we are hurting veterans and veterans health care. Veterans care went from $23.9 and received a $2.6 billion increase, over a 10-percent increase. When people are saying we are having cuts and it is going to cost thousands of jobs, it reminds me of somebody saying we are going to give you $1,000. Then they say we changed our mind, we are giving you $900--you just lost $100. We are talking about big increases, funding the priorities. I congratulate my colleague and urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I do not know what the agenda is. I know the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has a different opinion. Maybe the Democratic leader decided we are not going to be dealing with the appropriations bill. We have an amendment on which we are getting ready to vote. We were supposed to vote on it a couple of minutes ago. I guess people want to debate the Michigan case, but that is really not the issue before us. The issue before us is an appropriations bill. Eleven out of the thirteen appropriations bills have not been passed. We are trying to finish the appropriations bills. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee is trying to move the Senate forward. He has been asking for amendments. We are trying to consider amendments. We are getting ready to vote on an amendment, and the Democratic leader has a resolution that says: We want to adopt a position opposite that of the President of the United States on the Michigan case, without even advanced warning and without allowing the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who also has a resolution taking a different position, to come forward. There is a time and place to debate it, but this is not it. We should be doing the business we have not completed from last year, and that is the appropriations bill. I have a resolution, and I can do exactly what the Democratic leader did. I can ask unanimous consent that we take the plaintiff's side of this case and ask that it would pass. I know it would be objected to. It was actually drafted by Senator Hatch, so I will leave that to him to elect to do. It is kind of a waste of the Senate's time for people to take a contentious issue and say: I am going to ask unanimous consent that we take one side of that issue and try to pass it, knowing it would not pass. I could make this same argument and know it would not pass. I think we would be wasting the Senate's time. I urge our colleagues to stay with the regular order and finish the work we did not do last year, and that would be to deal with the amendments that are pending and pass the unfinished business of the appropriations bills. I shall not ask unanimous consent at this point, but if people want to pursue this, we can. I yield the floor.