Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I reserve the right to object.

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. NICKLES. I object.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. He made a unanimous consent request. I objected. I sought recognition. He gave up the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Did my colleague from Massachusetts finish his comments?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the gracious remarks of my colleague from Nevada. On the bill presented to the Senate last week, it has not been marked up in the committee, has not been reported out of committee. We have a preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, and the cost estimate is $17.1 billion in Fiscal Year 2003. On the floor last week, it was estimated by proponents, the Senator from Minnesota, the cost was $10 to $12 to $13 billion. In other words, they did not know. They are trying to pass it so quickly, they did not know how much it would cost. It has not been studied. This proposal is reportedly an extension of unemployment benefits, extending provisions that expire at the end of December. It was being portrayed as a 6 month extension. But when I looked at the details, I found we are using completely different triggers, among other differences. What does that mean for someone who does not follow this debate? It means more States qualify for more Federal benefits. There is currently an unemployment compensation program of up to 26 weeks financed by the State, then a Federally-funded Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation of up to an additional 13 weeks, and finally up to another 13 weeks for high unemployment states. By changing the trigger under this new proposal, we are saying more stages are eligible for extended benefits. We are saying benefits would be available in all states not just for 13 weeks but for 26 weeks, with some States even for an additional 7 weeks. This is getting expensive. This new plan is $10 billion more than a straight extension. Someone said we did this in 1990. That may not be the right way to do it. I am willing to work with my colleagues to provide assistance for those people in the States that really need help, but we ought to be very accurate in our language and not try to push something through too quickly. We ought to be responsible. We have enormous deficits now. We should try to do this in a fiscally responsible manner, so the bill can be signed. I will work with my colleagues from Massachusetts, from Minnesota, and others to see if we can come up with a bill that is affordable and has bipartisan support. At this stage, you have to have almost unanimous support. I will work with my colleagues to see if we can come up with it. The bill before the Senate, S. 3009, in my opinion, should not be passed. Maybe we can come up with a straight 13-week extension as we have done previously in the Senate. I will work with my colleagues and the Senator from Nevada to see if we can get something done. A straight extension would cost an estimated $7.3 billion instead of $17.1 billion. That is a possible. This bill that would cost $17 billion and would rewrite unemployment figures--I don't think that makes sense. Maybe we can work together and find something that is acceptable. I appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to have a preliminary CBO cost estimate printed.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Five minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I wish to speak on this resolution. First, I compliment my friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, for his speech and for his tenacity in trying to remind everyone about the condition of Naval Aviator Speicher. I think that keeps pressure on our Government, other governments, and the Iraqi Government to disclose his whereabouts and his status. Whether he is alive remains to be seen. I appreciate my colleague from Florida for continuing to press that issue. I join with him. I know the President of the United States is also pushing that issue. I appreciate his effort as well.

Mr. NICKLES. Certainly.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the colloquy. Just for the information of my friend from Florida, I was also here in 1991, and, unfortunately, Senator Nunn did not support the resolution in 1991. There was a partisan divide, for whatever reason. One, the resolution passed with bipartisan support. I tell my friend and colleague that. But at that point in time, the Democrat leader at the time, Senator Mitchell, was opposed to the resolution. Many Democrats opposed it, although several Democrats did support it. It passed, if my memory serves me correctly, 52 to 47. It was one of the first votes we had in early January of 1991. And it was one of the most important votes that this Senator has cast. I believe, probably this Thursday, the Senate likewise will be casting one of the most important votes we will cast. I appreciate the support of my friend and colleague from Florida for this resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the joint resolution.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I likewise would like to compliment my colleague, Senator Warner, because he has been leading the debate, certainly on this side of the aisle, but, frankly, on both sides of the aisle. Senator Warner has carried the debate on this side almost all of Friday, almost all of Monday, a great deal of today, and I am sure tomorrow and Thursday. He has also been joined by Senator Lieberman as a principal sponsor, as well as Senator McCain, Senator Bayh, and others. I compliment them. I heard some people debating this resolution as if they had not read it. Senate Joint Resolution 46 is well written. It is supported by the administration. There was a lot of time spent in putting this resolution together. Sometimes we legislate without reading. Sometimes we talk to people without listening. I encourage my colleagues to read the resolution. I hope it will get a unanimous vote. I looked at the resolutions we have passed in the last many years dealing with Iraq. Going back to the resolution we passed in 1991, I remember that resolution very plainly. A few days before that resolution passed, I was in Israel. Saddam Hussein was making statements like: If war broke out, Israel would burn. It would be consumed with fire. He was making all kinds of statements against the United States, against Israel, against any potential ally. As the previous administration, President Bush 1, was putting together an international coalition, Saddam Hussein was threatening anybody in that coalition. Congress debated, for months. You might remember that Kuwait was invaded in August of 1990. President Bush made a very strong statement. He said: This invasion will not stand. And he made that statement: You are going to be removed from Kuwait, one way or another. Frankly, he made that strong statement, and he backed it up. He sent 550,000 United States troops to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to build the military force and, in the next 6 months, built an international coalition that was unprecedented, unbelievably strong and powerful, with a number of countries, Arab and other countries, neighbors and from across the world, to stand up to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and to kick him out of Kuwait. That war was fought. It was very successful. And then President Bush stopped the war at that point because we achieved the U.N. resolution objectives, kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Then there were several resolutions that were passed, to which Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government agreed, that called for their disarmament and inspections. They agreed to these resolutions. We also passed resolutions that said we would use military force, if necessary, to compel compliance. And the United Nations, subsequent to that, beginning in 1991, all the way through 1998, passed 16 resolutions telling Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government: You must comply with these resolutions. We went to war, developed an international coalition to force him out of Kuwait and to force him to disarm, and he agreed. Unfortunately, he did not live up to his agreement. He lied. He did not comply. He was defiant in his noncompliance. As a result, he continued to build weapons of mass destruction. And the United Nations passed resolutions saying: You must comply, and, if necessary, we will use force. I could put in all these resolutions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the resolution that passed Congress, the Iraqi Breach Of International Obligations, because it is about a four-page summary, a short summary, but it is a resolution we passed on July 31, 1998, Public Law 105-235, and talks about the Iraqi breach of international obligations. I will not read it all, but basically the Iraqi Government totally failed to comply with the U.N. resolutions. The essence of the resolve--and I will read it-- Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations. That is the key phrase. This is what passed Congress in 1998. That was our unified statement that we made in 1998, that resolved we will ``bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations,'' and we will use ``appropriate action,'' i.e., military action, if necessary, to get him to comply. That resolution passed the Senate unanimously--unanimously--with no opposition. It had very strong support. I am looking at some of the statements made. I will just read part of one made by President Clinton on February 17, 1998 regarding Iraqi noncompliance. He made this speech to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon dealing with Iraq. It is very relevant today, as it was in 1998. This is President Clinton: Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more and rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. President Clinton continued: If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program. I mention this. This was from President Bill Clinton, a very strong statement. I read that statement. I am kind of proud of him and I think he was exactly right. Though his rhetoric was pretty strong, his actions, unfortunately, were not. He said, we are going to compel compliance. The Congress passed a resolution saying, we will do what is necessary to compel compliance. But we didn't follow up. I will read to you a statement made by Senator Daschle on the floor, the Democrat leader at the time. This was made on February 12, 1998: . . . Iraq shall not be permitted to develop and deploy an arsenal of frightening chemical and biological weapons under any circumstances. Skipping a couple paragraphs: The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat doesn't simply persist--it worsens. Saddam Hussein must understand the United States has the resolve to reverse that threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it has the will. I think Senator Daschle was right. I could go on. I have quotes from Vice President Gore, other prominent leaders in Congress at the time. We passed a strong resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the 1998 resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. Later in 1998, the U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. We bombed them. Then nothing happened. Since 1998, for the last 4 years, we haven't had any weapons inspectors in Iraq. They have done exactly as President Clinton forecasted they would do. They have continued to build their weapons of mass destruction, and they have been emboldened by our lack of action, by the lack of will. As a matter of fact, in all those years, the Oil-for-Food program grew. At that point he was exporting a little bit of oil for food. That figure has quadrupled in the last few years. Every 6 months it was renegotiated. And due to pressure from a lot of countries it was renegotiated; yes, we don't want the Iraqi people to suffer so we will allow them to sell more oil. Saddam Hussein has abused that program and exported a lot more oil. He has basically been producing almost all he can. He has taken that money and put it back into his weapons of mass destruction. He is not taking care of his people. We have Congressmen who were in Iraq last week talking about how pitiful it is that some of the kids are living in the hospitals and so on. Saddam Hussein has made billions off of oil, most of it illegally, but instead of using that money for the health and well-being of the Iraqi people, he has used it to build weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton was pretty insightful of what would happen. Unfortunately, during his term, things got worse. The inspectors were basically kicked out of Iraq. They were denied access. There is a long litany. I will insert in the Record a list of Iraqi noncompliance with the arms control inspectors, how they basically stopped them from doing their job. They did a decent job on occasion because they would get some insights from a defector, but Saddam Hussein's mistress was laughing about the fact Saddam Hussein would laugh that he would continue to conceal these weapons and basically defy the United Nations and the United States. We have had a change in the United States. Now we have President Bush, who said we should enforce the U.N. resolutions. We should stand up to Saddam Hussein. Things have changed. September 11 of last year did change things. It made us aware we are vulnerable to terrorists. Saddam Hussein has coalesced, has financed, has trained terrorists. The idea he is building these weapons of mass destruction and they might be distributed to potential terrorists is just not acceptable. What needs to be done? Frankly, what needs to be done is to enforce the existing U.N. resolutions and to reaffirm them. Some people have said: We don't think President Bush should just move unilaterally. The world community signed off on those U.N. resolutions, and at the time we gave those U.N. resolutions the use of force, if necessary, to compel compliance. What has changed? In 1998, we reaffirmed the use of force, if necessary, to compel compliance. Are things better now than they were in 1998? He kicked the arms control inspectors out, and they are building all kinds of weapons. I don't see how anything is better. Things are worse, just as President Clinton predicted they would be. We have rewarded his noncompliance. The international community has rewarded his noncompliance, and the United Nations has basically fallen into a group that lost its prestige and the status of being able to say: The world community is making a statement. This will not stand. They have allowed it to stand. They have allowed it to be neutered, to be ineffective. Now we have a President Bush who went to the United Nations and said: These resolutions are still in effect. We need to enforce them. There is a real danger out there. It is a danger not to us, the United States, but to the world. Many people in this body have said: I don't want him to move unilaterally, but let's do it in conjunction with the United Nations. President Bush didn't have to do that, but he did. He went to the United Nations and made a very strong speech. He is working to rebuild the international coalition that dissipated, if not disappeared, during the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration inherited the strongest, largest international coalition maybe ever assembled against a tyrant in Saddam Hussein in 1990 and 1991. By the year 2000, that international coalition was totally gone. Saddam Hussein was producing all the weapons he wanted. There were no arms control inspectors. It really deteriorated over those 8 or 9 years. President Bush is trying to rebuild it. He made the speech to the United Nations. He has contacted Members of Congress. He has brought many of us into the White House. He made a speech last night to the American people as well as to Congress. People said: We want Congress to speak on this so we will be united. He came to Congress. He asked for a resolution. We are going to give him a resolution. We are going to show the Congress is behind the President, I hope with an overwhelming vote, an overwhelming vote. What have we learned since 1991? Many people who voted no on the resolution in 1991 said: Let's give the sanctions a chance. I think we have had a little period of understanding now that Saddam Hussein doesn't care about sanctions and he doesn't care about U.N. resolutions. He doesn't care about pieces of paper. He does care about force. He respects force. He misjudged the will of President Bush 1. He misjudged the will of the United States, earlier in his invasion and also in events that led up to the war in 1991. I think he understands, too, that President Bush is very forceful. He means exactly what he says. If there is any chance to have a peaceful resolution in Iraq, it will only be after we pass this resolution, and he understands quite well that we will use force, if necessary, to compel compliance. Maybe then he will have a change of behavior. If not, he will pull the U.N. around and play them like a fiddle and try to do some type of diplomatic dance, never to do anything. He did that quite successfully for years. He will not be successful with President Bush and this team. President Bush has assembled a team--I respect President Bush greatly for the speeches he has made and for his courageous positions but also for the team he has put together. His Vice President, Dick Cheney, is former Secretary of Defense, and he has dealt with Saddam Hussein. His Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the war in 1991. Secretary Rumsfeld is well respected by our military leaders and around the world. President Bush has put together a great team--one that probably wasn't designed for this problem, but it could not be more experienced and ready to take on this enormous challenge. I have great confidence in their ability to be able to do the job. Is it without risk? No. Sure, there is risk involved. There is a lot that is involved. But doing nothing is a greater risk. Doing nothing is a much greater risk. If we want to have any hope of a peaceful resolution or to have this happen successfully without military conflict, it will only be after Saddam Hussein realizes the United States is behind our President, our Commander in Chief, and that we will enforce these resolutions. These resolutions don't have to be pieces of paper that are going to be ignored; they are the rule and effect of law. I hope the international community comes together. The U.N. passing a strong resolution is much greater after they see the Congress speak with one voice and pass overwhelmingly a resolution stating we believe the existing resolutions should be enforced. We do not think it is satisfactory to have Saddam Hussein--a person who used chemical weapons against his own people, who fought wars with Iran, who has invaded Kuwait, and who lobbed missiles against Saudi Arabia and the Israeli people, we don't think it is satisfactory for that person, that regime, to be able to develop and continue to manufacture tons and tons and tons of chemical and biological weapons, and work on nuclear weapons that could threaten millions of people--millions of people. That is not satisfactory. It needs to be stopped. I believe this President will do it. I think this resolution will be a big step in the right direction. I want to make one final comment, and this is to the Iraqi people. They have suffered enough under Saddam Hussein. This is really for the liberation of the Iraqi people, just like getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan was liberation for the Afghan people. They have been suppressed for too long. This tyrant, this dictator who executed people himself and had relatives executed, and countless people who might be his political opponents have been executed--he needs to go. In 1998, this Congress said we are for a regime change in Iraq. We were for it in 1998. We are for it now. In my opinion, we will not really have a return to a peaceful, growing, prosperous Iraq until there is a regime change. We will not have any confidence that there is any peaceful outlook for Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein is in the area. This Congress spoke in 1998 strongly and unanimously for regime change. I still think that is needed. The point I want to make is that if military conflict breaks out, it will not be a war with the Iraqi people. The war is with the leadership of Iraq, the unelected leader, Saddam Hussein, the tyrant who continues to oppress his people, basically stealing their money and using it to build weapons of mass destruction for his purposes, which is not for the well-being of the Iraqi people, but, frankly, for his desire to build a military machine that can threaten us. That is not acceptable. I believe this resolution, when it passes--and I hope it does overwhelmingly--will send a strong signal to the world and to Saddam Hussein that these resolutions can, should, and will be enforced. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. NICKLES. I compliment the Senator for his leadership on this. I have actually read the resolution. I think it is a very good product, bipartisan, due in large part to the Senator's leadership. I remember working with him on the 1991 resolution, as well as Senator Warner and many others who were on the floor 11 years ago. So I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut. We have had the pleasure of working together on many issues, and this is one of the most important. The Senator's leadership is very notable and commendable, and I thank him for it.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I might ask my friend and colleague from Montana, chairman of the Finance Committee, I am just wondering--I happen to be a Member of the committee. I can't remember a markup--did we mark up this bill in committee?

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, I am a little disgruntled. I am a Member of that committee. I had some issues. Senator Sessions wanted me to work with him to do something for the wage index for rural areas. I understand that is not in the bill. I had a provision I wanted to do dealing with the outpatient prospective payment system. I understand that is not in the bill. There was nothing done on prescription drugs. Senator Snowe and many of us wanted to do something this year. We never had a markup on that issue in the Finance Committee. So waiting until the last minute, we have known, frankly, of the necessity to do some type of adjustment. The House passed some of these provisions months ago. The Senate, to never have a markup, never to schedule one even in the Finance Committee, to debate and let all Members--not one and maybe two Members--to offer amendments, to come up with a Medicare adjustment bill, I think, is not letting the Senate work. To come up and say we introduced a bill--correct me if I am wrong, I believe it was placed on the calendar Wednesday, and on Friday they want to pass it without letting somebody offer other amendments. That is not allowing the Senate to work its will as it should. I happen to have waited many years to be on the Finance Committee. I waited for a purpose. I thought it was such a prestigious committee because it dealt with issues I like dealing with--Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, Social Security, and taxes. Not to be able to do a markup on bills such as this, on which almost always we would have a markup--we would have a bipartisan consensus and maybe then it could pass by unanimous consent through the Senate. But I don't think we did anything on the wage index for rural areas or on the outpatient payment system. I know we didn't do anything on prescription drugs. So, regretfully, at this point, unless there is--I ask my colleague, how much does this bill cost? (Mrs. LINCOLN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. NICKLES. It is $43 billion over 10 years. If the Senator will yield further, what is the cost over 2 or 3 years?

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, the bill was introduced, I believe, on Monday. It was printed in the Record, I believe, on Tuesday or Wednesday. Many of us--most all Senators, including most on the Finance Committee--have not had a chance to look at the bill. I don't believe it dealt with the wage index for rural areas, at least satisfactorily to Senator Sessions and myself. I don't believe it dealt with outpatients. I know it didn't deal with prescription drugs, which Senator Sessions and others want to deal with this year. We may be willing to do something, but before we pass bills by unanimous consent--introduce bills on Wednesday and say we want to pass them Friday-- it is going to take a little more bipartisan work. There has not been enough of that. Maybe two Senators are in agreement on this bill in the committee. But other committee members are entitled to look at it and to have some input and have a little more of a chance to figure out what is in it. To introduce a bill or have it put on the calendar Wednesday and say we want to pass it on Friday by unanimous consent, I don't think is a proper way to legislate. Also, all of us have known October 1 was fast approaching. As I mentioned before, the House passed this months ago. There is no reason, in my opinion, to not have a markup in the full committee. There is no reason in my mind. We didn't have a markup on prescription drugs in the full committee. I don't think you should disenfranchise members of the committee, some of whom have waited a long time to be a member. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, you estimate the cost over 2 years to be $10 billion?

Mr. NICKLES. Let me work with my colleague. I may be willing to come back with a counteroffer in the not too distant future, pulling in a few other members of the Finance Committee and maybe the administration. I would like to see us do something this year in this area. It is not too late. I haven't had a chance to review the proposal that the chairman is trying to pass this morning. I am happy to look at it. I am happy to look at what others are trying to do. We may make a counteroffer in the not too distant future. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2766

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will object--the majority leader has the right to move to any bill he wants to move to. It is one of the prerogatives of the majority leader. If he wishes to move to the Labor-HHS bill, he has to set aside a few other bills. I happen to think we should finish the appropriations bill we started a month ago, the Department of Interior bill. If he really wants to move off the Interior bill and go to Labor-HHS, the majority leader can do that. I don't know what kind of games are being played. People are running to the floor saying, ``I want to pass this bill,'' and it never was marked up in committee or ``I want to pass this,'' and we want to do unemployment compensation. And some people said on the floor, oh, it is a straight extension, but it costs about three times as much as a straight extension. I have not figured out all the differences, but we find out it is much more expensive. It is not a good way to legislate. They say we are going to pass unemployment compensation legislation, and it was estimated by the proponents that it might cost $10 billion or $12 billion. Now I get estimates it is going to cost $18 billion. The proposal was made a moment ago to do Medicare adjustment, and the cost was estimated by the proponents at $43 billion. I have not even had a chance to look at it. So one proposal was $17 billion, dealing with unemployment. I guess this proposal by the chairman of the Finance Committee is $43 billion, and that is $60 billion. Most of the expenses are over the first couple of years, certainly on unemployment compensation, and I would think on the Medicare adjustment bill as well. And then on successive actions we have people running to the floor saying: I want to pass a unanimous consent, and I hope a Republican will object, and then we can say we didn't pass that bill because a Republican objected--not telling people, wait a minute, did these things go through committee? Do we have an idea how much they cost? That is a pretty crummy way to legislate. The fiscal year just began October 1, but we didn't know it was going to come, so we will go to the floor. I have made umpteen speeches this month as to why are we not marking up bills and passing the Interior bill. We should have passed the Interior bill in 2 days. We got stuck on a provision dealing with fire management. Several Senators said they wanted to have flexibility on how to deal with fire in their own States. The Senator from South Dakota got a fix in for his State. They are able to do it in South Dakota. I compliment him, but shouldn't the rest of the West be able to have fire management tools to get out some of the dead timber so they don't have such enormous fires? That is what several Senators have asked. Yet we have not even been able to get a vote on that proposal. If you were managing a bill in days past, you would have an amendment, and you would vote on it. If you didn't like it, you moved to table it. We didn't do either of those. We just let the bill amble along and take up the entire month of September. Then we have the Department of Homeland Security. I do not know if we are any closer today than we were when we started the day after Labor Day. We are on that bill now for the fifth week. People are running to the Chamber saying: We need to pass an appropriations bill; we are just going to do it by unanimous consent. That is a pretty crummy way to legislate. We did not know we were running out of time; we did not know October 1 was coming; we did not know it was the beginning of the fiscal year. There is gross ineptitude as far as management of the appropriations process and the budget process. I used to be a member of the Appropriations Committee. I still am a member of the Budget Committee. It is the first time since 1974 that we have not passed a budget. Because we did not pass a budget, unfortunately, it has really clogged up the appropriations process. Now the Interior bill is back on the calendar. We have homeland security, which the majority leader promised the President we would pass. We thought we would pass it before the August break. We have not done it, and we are well into October. Now we are on the Iraq resolution and, hopefully, we will be able to conclude that shortly. I happen to be one who wants to do the appropriations bills, but the majority leader is the one who sets the agenda, and he is the one who calls up the appropriations bills, not individual Senators calling them up and saying: I have my bill; let's pass it today. No one gets to look at it; no one gets to know how much is in it. No one gets to know whether it is signable or not. The bill the chairman of the Finance Committee is promoting today has a lot of provisions that I am sure a lot of Senators want. I would like to get a bill the President will sign. I would like to get a bill that does not bust the budget. I would like to get a bill that is responsible. Maybe we can do that. I am willing to work with colleagues. But if you are going to come to the floor and pass a bill dealing with an unemployment compensation extension, it is going to take unanimous consent. We are not going to be able to pass a bill that costs $17 billion or $18 billion when we might be able to do a straight adjustment for $5 billion or $6 billion. It is the same for the Medicare adjustment bill. It is going to have to be a unanimous consent package that all people sign off on, not just two, and all members of the Finance Committee should have a chance to review it and say: Yes, this is a good package. I will work with my colleagues. We pass a lot of legislation by unanimous consent, but it takes bipartisan cooperation to do it. I do not think we have seen evidence of that enough. I hope we will see it in the next few days as we conclude this very unproductive year in this session. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I appreciate my colleagues's remarks. He mentioned 60 as a magic number. At this point, 100 is the magic number. So it takes a lot of bipartisan work and cooperation to get things done because right now we have to do a lot of legislation by unanimous consent. I think my statement of gross ineptitude in dealing with the budget process is probably pretty accurate. I was not defining any one Senator, but we have not passed a budget. That is a pretty significant failing. We have passed one every year I have been in the Senate for the last 22 years. It is never easy but is always done. Because we did not get a budget done this year, we do not have the appropriations bills done. It has led to a whole chain of failures. This is the first year--you have to give Congress an F in the appropriations-budget process. We have not sent to the President one appropriations bill, other than a continuing resolution. Not one. I hope we can break that train. I hope we can pass several appropriations bills, certainly the Department of Defense, and I hope others, but we are going to have to move much more rapidly. The majority leader is going to have to call them up. I hope maybe we can change and have a more productive week. I hope it is just a week and not 2 weeks.

Mr. NICKLES. Yes.