[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23357-23377]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF JIM NUSSLE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
                                 BUDGET

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Jim Nussle, of 
Iowa, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 3 hours 
of debate on the nomination, with 2 hours equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Budget and Homeland Security 
Committees, and 1 hour under the control of the Senator from Vermont, 
Mr. Sanders.
  Who seeks recognition? The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now considering the nomination of 
Congressman Jim Nussle to be the next Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget. I will vote against the confirmation of Mr. 
Nussle. I have informed him this morning that I would cast that vote.
  I do not make this decision lightly. I like Jim Nussle. I worked with 
him when he was the House Budget Committee chairman. We have always had 
a good personal relationship. But this goes beyond a personal 
relationship; this is a question of the fiscal policy of the United 
States. Congressman Nussle would be quick to tell you that he has been 
an architect of this fiscal policy. Of course, the key architect has 
been the President of the United States, but Mr. Nussle has been a 
strong ally of the President in constructing this fiscal policy. I 
believe it is a profound mistake for this country and one that simply 
must be changed. To send a signal, I will cast my vote in opposition to 
the confirmation of Mr. Nussle.
  Let me say, I voted to move his nomination through the Budget 
Committee. I said at the time that he is clearly qualified, which he 
clearly is. He is, after all, the former chairman of the House Budget 
Committee. But this is a question of what policy do we pursue for the 
future. Congressman Nussle has indicated that in fact he is proud of 
the policy that has been put in place. That is where we profoundly 
disagree. I believe this is a consequential vote, to send a signal on 
what we believe the fiscal policy of the United States should be, going 
forward.
  Here is the record. When the President came into office he inherited 
a surplus. In fact, there was a projected surplus at the time of almost 
$6 trillion over the next 10 years. We all know what happened. The 
President turned that into massive and record deficits, in fact, the 
largest deficits in our history. Part of that was because the President 
increased spending and increased it rather dramatically. He increased 
it from $1.9 trillion a year to $2.7 trillion, almost a 50-percent 
increase. We know Iraq was one part of that. He told us at the time 
that he engaged our forces in Iraq that that would cost about $50 
billion; the whole enterprise in Iraq would cost some $50 billion. 
Instead, we are at $567 billion and counting. He has already asked for 
another $50 billion which would take us over $600 billion committed to 
Iraq, 12 times the President's original estimate.
  At the same time that spending has gone up dramatically, revenues of 
the country have basically stagnated and

[[Page 23358]]

stagnated over a 6- or 7-year period. Going back to 2000, you can see 
that real, inflation-adjusted revenues of the United States were just 
over $2 trillion. We didn't get back to that amount until last year. 
This year we are anticipating $2.13 trillion in real revenue.
  Spending is up dramatically. Real revenue has stagnated. The result 
is deficits and debt have soared and that is precisely what has 
happened. Here is the debt of the United States during this period. We 
have gone from $5.8 trillion at the end of the first year of the 
President's time in office to $8.9 trillion in 2007. That is a stunning 
increase in debt.
  Unfortunately, increasingly it is financed from abroad. This is 
foreign holdings of U.S. debt. You can see we have gone from a combined 
total when this President took over of just over $1 trillion of U.S. 
debt held by foreign entities, and look what has happened during this 6 
years of this administration. He has more than doubled foreign holdings 
of our debt.
  Some of our friends will say that is a sign of strength. I don't know 
in whose mind that is a sign of strength. Owing more countries more 
money doesn't strike me as a sign of strength. In fact, here is the 
list of the 10 top holders of U.S. debt. Japan we now owe over $600 
billion; we owe China over $400 billion; we owe the United Kingdom 
almost $200 billion; we owe the ``Oil Exporters'' $120 billion; we owe 
Brazil, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and--my favorite--
the Caribbean Banking Centers. We owe them almost $50 billion as of 
now.
  I am always amused to hear our colleagues say they have done this 
with a tax policy that has increased the progressivity of the tax 
system. I don't know what calculation would lead to you that 
conclusion. The fact is, in 2006 alone, those earning over $1 million a 
year got on average a tax cut of almost $120,000--for that year alone. 
Somebody earning less than $100,000 got less than $700 in tax cuts.
  Again, those earning over $1 million a year--and I have nothing 
against people being successful financially. I am all for it. I wish 
the success of this country were more broadly shared. That would be a 
good thing. That would be a positive value. But I must say our friends 
on the other side are incredibly focused on helping the very wealthiest 
among us, so they chose a tax policy that gave, on average, to those 
earning over $1 million a year a tax cut approaching $120,000 in 1 
year. That is not my idea of broadly shared tax policy, or one that is 
fair and equitable.
  In fact, we know the cost of the President's tax cuts for 2007 alone, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office, is $205 billion. That is 
more than the projected deficit. So for this year the President's tax 
cuts that go overwhelmingly to the most wealthy among us are totally 
and completely responsible for the deficit.
  The President's answer is more tax cuts. Here is what we are told 
will happen if the additional tax cuts the President is seeking and the 
current tax cuts are extended. The additional debt that will result is 
the red part of this chart. The green part of the chart is the debt if 
the tax cuts expired or are paid for.
  I heard our colleagues on the other side say the budget passed by the 
Democrats had big tax increases. No, it did not. There was no 
assumption of a tax increase of any kind in the budget we passed. In 
fact, we had very dramatic tax relief, tax relief for middle-class 
taxpayers, the continuation of the middle-class tax cuts, as well as 
estate tax reform. We assumed that things would be paid for--not with 
tax increases but by closing tax loopholes, by going after the tax 
gap--the difference between what is owed and what is paid--by closing 
down abusive tax shelters. That is precisely what we ought to be doing 
in this country to stop the tax scams that have exploded.
  I have also heard that the economy is performing splendidly. The 
problem with that is if you compare this recovery to the nine previous 
recoveries since World War II, what you see is dramatic 
underperformance. In fact, if you look at real revenues you find we are 
$86 billion short of the typical recovery since World War II.
  If we look at job creation, we see we are lagging behind the typical 
recovery since World War II by 7.6 million private sector jobs.
  On real business investment, the pattern is the same. We are 63 
percent behind the typical recovery since World War II, in terms of 
real business investment.
  In terms of economic growth we see the same pattern. The real GDP 
average annual growth during the nine previous business cycles, the 
nine previous recoveries since World War II, is 3.4 percent; this 
recovery, a tepid 2.5 percent. This is not an economic record one can 
be proud of or be talking about in very positive terms because it is an 
economic recovery that has been among the weakest of the nine major 
recoveries since World War II.
  Here is what happens to spending under our budget resolution. We take 
it from 20.5 percent of GDP this year down to 18.9 percent. This is a 
fiscally responsible budget.
  With respect to the budget resolution and the difference between it 
and the President's plan, we have only 1 percent more spending than the 
Bush budget--1 percent. And where did that additional spending go? We 
put it into veterans' health care, children's health and education. 
Those ought to be the priorities for this country--to take care of the 
veterans to whom we made a promise when we sent them off to war that 
they would be cared for. This administration did not ask for sufficient 
resources to keep that promise. We did.
  On children's health care, we said we ought to begin a process of 
trying to cover all of the children in this country. The administration 
did not agree with that priority, nor did they agree to expand the 
support for education that we think is required if we are going to keep 
our country No. 1.
  With respect to overall revenues, it is very interesting to look at 
what the President called for in his budget. He called for $14.826 
trillion in revenue. That is what he called for in his budget scored by 
his own agency: $14.826 trillion. Our budget called for $14.828 
trillion--virtually no difference. When they talk about the largest tax 
increase in history, they are engaging in a figment of their 
imagination.
  If you use CBO scoring for both instead of using the President's own 
agency to score his own proposal, which I think is eminently fair--but 
if you use CBO to score both, we have a 2-percent difference in 
revenues and we believe that can be easily achieved by closing abusive 
tax shelters, going after these offshore tax havens, and by beginning 
to close this looming tax cap gap, the difference between what is owed 
and what is paid, with no tax increase at all.
  Let me conclude by citing Treasury Secretary Snow. He acknowledged 
the need for a bipartisan approach to solving long-term challenges. He 
said, ``You can't do health care reform or Social Security reform . . . 
without a bipartisan consensus. If we made a mistake, it was not 
approaching it in more of a bipartisan way.''
  That is the former Secretary of Treasury under this administration 
lamenting the fact that they were not sufficiently bipartisan. That is 
precisely what is needed in this town, is a more bipartisan approach to 
dealing with the fiscal challenges facing this country.
  I hope very much that this administration gets the message that we 
need to change course for the fiscal future of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to rise on behalf of supporting 
Congressman Nussle, who has been nominated to be head of OMB. I also 
want to thank the chairman of the Budget Subcommittee for the courteous 
and professional way he always proceeds in bringing this nomination 
forward. He could have slow-walked it; he could have held it up. He did 
not. I appreciate that. I know Members on our side appreciate that. 
That is the approach he has taken as chairman; he has always been fair. 
We do appreciate that very much.

[[Page 23359]]

  I would note that in his closing statement, he called for 
bipartisanship. It was a bipartisan act on his part to report Mr. 
Nussle out. It would even be more of a bipartisan act if he voted for 
Mr. Nussle. That would be truly a bipartisan act.
  Let me note that the debate here is not about Congressman Nussle or 
his qualifications. As chairman of the Budget Committee in the House, 
he clearly is qualified to do this job. It is the President's 
prerogative to pick whomever he wants to be OMB Director; it is really 
an in-house job, really an arm of the White House, and so he has 
tremendous leverage in this area, in my humble opinion, latitude in 
this area.
  So really today is going to be more about a debate of where the two 
parties stand on economic policies. And there are significant 
differences here. All we need to do is to return to the ``scene of the 
crime,'' otherwise known as the Democratic budget which passed this 
Congress, a budget which dramatically increased the taxes by $900 
billion, a budget which dramatically increased the spending on the 
discretionary side by $22 billion this year and $205 billion over the 
term of the budget, a budget which did not address or even attempt to 
address the most significant problem we have on the spending side of 
the ledger, which is the issue of how we deal with the retirement of 
the baby boom generation and the programs which benefit that 
generation--Medicare, Social Security specifically, Medicaid to a 
lesser degree--and the fact that those programs are going to drain our 
children and our children's children's opportunities to be successful 
and to have quality lifestyles because the cost of those programs is 
going to simply overwhelm the next generations because we will have 
done nothing as a result of the budget that passed this Congress under 
the Democratic leadership to address those issues.
  But before we return to that issue, let me just simply highlight a 
few points which I think have been spun a little bit by the other side 
of the aisle, which are the issues of what these tax cuts which were 
put in place by this President at the beginning of his term have done 
and how the economy has grown.
  First off, as a result of these tax cuts, in large part, and as a 
result of the economic policies of this administration, we have now 
seen 23--I think it is actually 24--consecutive quarters of economic 
growth, which is a pretty good experience for our Nation. In addition, 
we have added 8.3 million jobs--8.3 million jobs. In fact, the mean 
income of Americans has grown faster during the term of this President 
than it did under the term of President Clinton.
  In addition, we have seen that revenues are now exceeding the 
historic projections by significant amounts. We have seen in the last 4 
years revenue increases to the Federal Government which have 
outstripped anything in our history as a percentage of growth. 
Historically, revenues to the Federal Government have been about 18.2 
percent of gross national product. Now they are up around 18.6 percent, 
and they are continuing to go up.
  What has caused this huge influx of revenues to the Federal 
Government? What has caused it is that we put in place a fair tax 
policy which said to entrepreneurial Americans, to working Americans: 
Go out, invest, take risks, make this economy grow, create jobs. As a 
result of saying that to American entrepreneurs and to working 
Americans, we have seen this economic expansion. It is an economic 
expansion that has not only benefited the average American by giving 
them a better job and more jobs and a higher income rate of growth, but 
it has obviously benefited the Federal Government because the Treasury 
has seen a huge influx in revenues from this economic growth, which has 
been energized in large part by the tax cuts which were put in place in 
the early part of this administration.
  Now we see a policy coming forward from the other side of the aisle, 
as defined by their budget, which even they admit increased taxes by 
$400 billion over 5 years and arguably increased them by $900 billion 
over 5 years. And where are those revenues going to come from? Well, if 
you listen to the chairman of the Budget Committee, they are just going 
to come from collecting money debt, from waste and fraud. Well, those 
are classic obfuscations. The simple fact is that we heard from the 
Revenue Commissioner. He said he could not collect any more than maybe 
$20 billion or $30 billion in addition to the revenues we are already 
collecting over a 5-year period; nowhere near $400 billion or $900 
billion.
  No, you have to listen to the Democratic Party's leadership, not that 
the Senator from North Dakota is not one of their leaders; he is, and 
he is one of their best leaders, by the way. But the people running for 
President, what are they proposing? Well, they are proposing primarily 
that we eliminate the capital gains rate which was put in place, the 
dividend rate which was put in place. Those are the two primary places 
they are proposing raising revenues. But they are also proposing 
raising the marginal tax rate. They are proposing the Senator Levin 
proposal, which would require that we book all expenses for tax 
purposes. They are proposing a repeal of carry interest, which is a way 
that entrepreneurs invest and take advantage of that investment and 
generate more investment. They are proposing to eliminate deferrals. 
Proposal after proposal after proposal is coming out of the Democratic 
candidates for President, almost at a rate which makes your head spin. 
The only thing that is coming out faster are proposals to spend money. 
And believe me, we know because in New Hampshire we are listening to 
all of this.
  I had the fortune--good fortune, I suppose, or the fortune anyway--to 
listen to the Senator from New York, followed by the Senator from Ohio, 
followed by the Senator from North Carolina, all coming to New 
Hampshire in sequence. I listened to all three of their speeches, and I 
couldn't keep up with how much money they were going to spend because 
they were proposing so many new programs. It was like watching a 
whirligig. Every 10 seconds there would be a new program, new program, 
new program, followed by taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes.
  Well, I think one thing we should have learned, both from the 
experience of President Kennedy and President Reagan and now President 
Bush, is that when you start to raise taxes on those who are willing to 
take risks and invest and as a result create jobs in this economy, you 
slow the rate of growth of the economy. Why is that? It is human 
nature. You also slow the rate of growth of revenues to the Federal 
Government. Why is that? It is human nature. You raise taxes on people 
and they will change their economic activity to try to avoid taxes. It 
has been proven year in and year out. You get tax rates to a certain 
level and people simply don't invest in taxable activities. Thus, they 
misuse capital. It is inefficiently used, so fewer jobs are created, 
less economic activity occurs. If you increase taxes, people will 
invest in a way to try to avoid paying taxes, and thus the revenues to 
the Federal Government will drop off.
  OMB, Joint Tax all estimated that when this capital gains cut rate 
was put in place at 15 percent, that over a 5-year period there would 
be a $3 billion loss. They used a static model. They used 1950 
economics, they used Galbraith thought, Harvard thought, Princeton 
thought on what economics is, which basically says that if you just 
raise taxes, you get more revenues. They missed the Chicago school, I 
think, they missed the Kennedy school--I mean by that John Kennedy 
himself, the President--they missed the Reagan school, which has proven 
by fact that when you cut taxes on productive activity to a reasonable 
level, you create more productive activity. So instead of having a $3 
billion loss of revenue over that 5-year period, which was what we were 
told we were going to have, we have had a $100 billion increase over 
the estimates over that period in capital gains revenue. Huge 
expansion. That is, quite honestly, why the deficit has come down 
dramatically. These are the numbers here.
  Equally interesting--and we hear this on the other side: Well, the 
tax

[[Page 23360]]

was for wealthy people; they are the ones who got the tax break. Well, 
yes, that is true. But why is that? Well, it is because the top 20 
percent of Americans pay the taxes, for a large part. Eighty-five 
percent of American income taxes are paid by the top 20 percent--85 
percent. Eighty-five percent of American income taxes are paid by the 
top 20 percent of income receivers in our economy. If you are in the 
top 20 percent, you are paying the taxes. So if there is a tax 
reduction, you are probably going to get that reduction. That is not 
the issue. The issue is, Are the top 20 percent paying a fair share?
  Well, under the Clinton administration--and I do not think anybody on 
the other side of the aisle is going to argue that the Clinton 
administration was pro the high-income individual in the sense of tax 
policy--under the Clinton administration, 81 percent of the taxes in 
America were borne by the top 20 percent. But under the Bush 
administration, 85 percent of the tax burden of America is now borne by 
the top 20 percent. So the Bush administration has actually made the 
tax laws more progressive. Why is that? Human nature. If you create a 
fair tax policy, people will pay taxes. If you have an unfair tax 
policy, where taxes are too high, such as what is proposed by the other 
side of the aisle, in the area of dividends, capital gains, marginal 
rates, expensing, carry interest, you go on and on and on, people do 
tax avoidance, they invest in shelters, they go out and buy cattle that 
do not exist or subways that do not exist. That is inefficient for the 
economy, it does not create jobs, and it reduces revenues. What the 
Bush administration understands, what the John Kennedy administration 
understood, what the Ronald Reagan administration understood, is that 
when you create a tax policy which is fair, high-income people pay more 
taxes, and that is the way it is today.
  There is another interesting thing about the Bush tax policy. The 
bottom 40 percent, the people in the bottom 40 percent of incomes in 
this country, they actually do not pay income taxes as a group. 
Individuals obviously do, but as a group they do not pay income taxes. 
Under the Clinton administration, they got 1.6 percent of benefits back 
because they got the earned-income tax credit. Under the Bush 
administration, they are getting almost twice that back under the 
earned-income tax credit. So not only do you have the high-income 
people paying more in taxes as a percentage of the total, but you have 
the people in the moderate income and lower income levels actually 
getting more back from the income taxes. That is called progressivity. 
That is what you want in a tax system--progressivity that produces 
revenue, revenue at historic rates. So this argument that we do not 
have a reasonable tax policy in place that is generating revenues is a 
little bit--it flies in the face of fact, especially on the issue of 
capital gains and dividends.
  Remember something else about capital gains and dividends: 
disproportionate benefiters from the capital gains rate and dividend 
rate are seniors. It is seniors who have capital gains income as they 
sell their homes in which they have lived all of their lives and move 
on to some other lifestyle; it is seniors who have dividend income 
because they have fixed incomes and they have left their earning jobs. 
So when these folks on the other side of the aisle who are being spoken 
for by their leadership who are running for President call for a 
dividend increase and the capital gains increase, they are calling for 
an increase of taxes on our seniors, no doubt about that.
  Now, there have been some other arguments made here, returning to the 
scene of the crime, as I said, the Democratic budget. There has been a 
claim that they used pay-go as a way to discipline spending around this 
place. Pay-go. Pay-go. ``Swiss-cheese-go'' should be the term, ``Swiss-
cheese-go.'' Every time they have a spending program around here that 
they want to spend money on, pay-go disappears. Where did it go? I do 
not know where it went. Maybe it went under this desk somewhere. Maybe 
it is under this desk. But it is not around here whenever we are trying 
to spend money. There is no enforcement. Look at these bills which have 
been brought out just this year which should have been subject to pay-
go, which have not been subject to pay-go--bill after bill after bill, 
the worst being, of course, the SCHIP bill that was just brought out 
before we departed, but there are other ones. There is a whole series 
of them. I won't go through them; they are too numerous to even mention 
any more. So let's hear no more about this pay-go as being a budget 
enforcement mechanism. It is a nice phrase. It was used aggressively by 
all of the people who ran for the Senate in the last election on the 
Democratic side of the aisle as the way they were going to discipline 
spending around this place. It has not been used to discipline spending 
at all, and it won't be in the future.
  Now, what we are talking about here is very simple. The budget 
brought forward by the other side of the aisle increased taxes over 
what the President probably would have had to do because of the AMT 
issue by at least $400 billion, probably closer to $450 billion. It 
then turned around and spent those tax increases to the tune of 
somewhere around $210 billion plus. In addition, it did not address 
entitlement spending, which is the key issue that confronts the United 
States as a nation. It did nothing about disciplining our own fiscal 
house by putting in place procedural mechanisms which would allow us to 
discipline.
  I find the argument that the reason people are going to vote against 
Congressman Nussle to be Director of the OMB because of the fiscal 
policies of this President to be a bit disingenuous. Is it that they 
don't like 23 quarters of fiscal expansion and growth? Is it that they 
don't like 8.5 million new jobs? Is it that they don't like revenues 
being at an historic increase over the last 4 years and now being up to 
about 18.7 percent of gross national product, which exceeds the norm? 
Is it that they don't like the fact that seniors now have a reasonable 
tax rate on their capital gains and a reasonable tax rate on their 
dividends? It must be because that is the economic policy they are 
claiming has not worked and isn't appropriate and, therefore, they are 
going to vote in protest against Congressman Nussle.
  In my view, I hope Congressman Nussle continues these policies. I 
hope the President will move down the road of fiscal discipline and 
will continue to give us a tax policy which is fair, balanced, reduces 
revenue for the Federal Government, gives entrepreneurs a reason to go 
out there and work and take risks and thus create jobs for Americans 
and giant revenue increases for the Government.
  I yield the floor and reserve the balance of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. At this point, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that following my presentation, 
Senator Sanders be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.
  Madam President, I sat here enormously entertained by my friend from 
New Hampshire. It was an almost unbelievable presentation. I will deal 
with a couple of points in a few minutes.
  Let me first say we have the nomination in front of us of former 
Congressman Nussle, who was part of the crowd who early on in this 
administration, as a new administration took shape, came to town with 
their allies in Congress, including Congressman Nussle, and said: We 
see at the end of the Clinton administration very large, proposed, 
projected budget surpluses. Let's put in place very large tax cuts, 
mostly to wealthy Americans.
  Some of us said: Maybe that is not the conservative way to do things. 
Maybe we should wait a bit and see whether the actual surpluses do 
materialize.
  No, no, they said. We are going to stick in these big tax cuts, most 
to wealthy Americans, because that is the

[[Page 23361]]

way things work. We believe in the trickle down theory.
  Guess what. That crowd had their way. I didn't vote for it, but they 
had their way. Mr. Nussle, the nominee, chairman of the House Budget 
Committee, the President, and others in the team had their way. The 
result, of course, we all understand: A $5.6 trillion projected budget 
surplus was turned in to a projected deficit of $3 trillion. That is 
during Mr. Nussle's time.
  There was actually one person in the crowd who didn't go along with 
it. He got fired. His name was Paul O'Neill. Paul O'Neill said he tried 
to warn the administration that the growing budget deficits expected to 
top hundreds of billions of dollars posed a threat to the economy. The 
Vice President, Mr. Cheney, said, quoting from the book that was 
written about this:

       You know, Paul, Reagan proves that deficits don't matter.

  That is the crowd we are talking about, deficits don't matter. That 
comes from the Vice President, but it could have come from the nominee 
before us because it is all part of the same crowd, believing in the 
same thing.
  It is fascinating to me that the previous speaker talked about how 
wonderful things are going. This economic engine of ours is purring 
just fine. I guess it is, if you live in the right neighborhood and 
drive the right vehicle. A whole lot of folks got up this morning to 
work hard all day, struggle to pay their bills. They are the kind of 
people who know about seconds. They know about second shifts, second 
job, second hand, second mortgage, and they take second place every 
single day when we have this debate on the Senate floor by people such 
as my colleague who said things are going well for everybody.
  Let me describe what we have in our Tax Code. The second wealthiest 
man in the world, Mr. Warren Buffett, a man I greatly admire, said he 
thinks our Tax Code doesn't work at all. He said: If this is class war, 
my side is winning. The second richest man in the world says he pays a 
lower income tax rate than the receptionist in his office. He thinks 
that is wrong. So do I. Why? Because my colleague is describing his 
philosophy. We need to reward investment.
  How about rewarding work for a change? The philosophy on the other 
side is, let's exempt income from investment and tax work. Why is work 
less worthy than investment? Tell me. You think this works well. You 
believe this system this crowd has put together makes sense? When the 
second richest man in the world says: By the way, this system allows me 
to pay a lower tax rate than the receptionist in my office, are you 
proud of that? That is what you are bragging about?
  And spending, I keep seeing the disjointed fingers point to the 
Democratic side on spending. There is no one who has proposed more 
spending in the history of this country than the Bush administration. 
Certainly, no one has proposed higher and larger deficits in the 
history of this country than this administration. So it is a little 
tired for us to hear about big spending. No one can match the big 
spending habits of this administration.
  One more point: We have in front of us in this Chamber a $145 billion 
proposal for additional emergency funds for the Department of Defense 
for Iraq and Afghanistan. We read in the paper recently there is 
another $50 billion expected on the way which means there will be in 
front of us $195 billion in requested funding by this President for the 
war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Incidentally, he proposes it all be judged 
as an emergency so none of it has to be paid for. So we will continue 
to send soldiers to war and then ask them to come back to pay down the 
debt because we didn't as a country decide to do it. This President 
didn't want to do it. This President said: I want all of that money on 
an emergency basis. Talk about a fiscal policy that is out of balance, 
one that lacks values, one that I think shortchanges American workers, 
one that certainly shortchanges this country's future--this is the 
policy.
  The fact is, this nominee is a significant part of the engine for 
that policy. He served as chairman of the House Budget Committee for 6 
years during the period of the origination of this policy. Three of 
those 6 years they couldn't even get a budget together. Three of those 
years had the highest budget deficits in history, and we still hear 
people bragging about the content of that fiscal policy? Are they 
kidding? It is unbelievable. It is, I suppose, because we all get up 
and shower in the morning before putting suits on. Those people who 
shower in the evening after a hard day's work, they don't have it quite 
so good. The fact is, they are the ones who pay the bills, pay taxes, 
struggle to make ends meet.
  Talk about creating jobs in these years. The job creation is anemic 
with this administration. Take a look at the number of jobs created 
over the years of this administration and evaluate what we needed to 
create to keep pace. We are not anywhere close to that.
  Finally, all this debt that has been racked up by this crowd with 
this fiscal policy, guess who holds a substantial amount of that debt. 
We borrow money from China and Japan to finance a war in Iraq. That is 
unbelievable to me.
  From my standpoint, I don't intend to vote for this nominee. It is 
not so much about this nominee. I generally vote for a President's 
choices for the Cabinet. But in this case, it is time for us to decide 
to send a message, a message the American people already understand: 
This fiscal policy doesn't work. This fiscal policy is built on a 
foundation of quicksand. We already know the result. We see it year 
after year after year.
  I intend to vote against this nominee. My hope is that, perhaps 
through this debate, we will decide there is a better fiscal policy, 
one that requires responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we now go 
to Senator Wyden for 8 minutes, followed by Senator Collins for 10 
minutes, Senator Lieberman for 10 minutes, and then to Senator Sanders 
for his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, a week ago there was a Government report 
that said more about what is ahead for the Federal budget than anything 
else. The Census Bureau reported a moral abomination. Here in the 
richest country on Earth, more than 2 million additional Americans are 
without health insurance. With many more citizens one health premium 
rate hike away from joining the ranks of the uninsured, the next 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget must face up to a stark 
fact. America's dysfunctional health care system, with its rising 
costs, hefty increases in chronic illness and unique hardship for 
employers, will drive the future of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security, our largest domestic Government programs.
  At his confirmation hearing, the Washington Post reported that Jim 
Nussle repeatedly said how honored he would be to continue to discuss 
the issues raised that morning. My message today for the nominee is 
straightforward. If Jim Nussle wants the position of director of OMB to 
be more than an honorary title, he is going to have to work with the 
Congress on a bipartisan basis on critical issues such as fixing health 
care, the premier domestic issue of our time. He cannot do that job 
without bipartisanship.
  I suggest there are several opportunities for just that. Senator 
Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Hatch have 
worked hard to expand coverage for our Nation's youngsters. The 
administration has indicated they would veto that legislation. I hope 
if Jim Nussle is confirmed as the head of the Office of Management and 
Budget, he will be a voice for bringing all sides together and bringing 
together all sides quickly to get that legislation passed and provide 
additional protection for our youngsters. If that is accomplished, then 
it would be possible late this fall to move on to

[[Page 23362]]

broader legislation to fix health care. I and Senator Bennett, in the 
first bipartisan health reform bill brought to the Senate in more than 
13 years, have proposed legislation, which has also been sponsored by 
Senators Nelson, Gregg, and Alexander, that addresses other key issues 
such as the Tax Code in American health care.
  The Tax Code today disproportionately favors the richest and promotes 
inefficiency at the same time. We have largely sick care in America, 
not health care. Medicare Part A will pay thousands for seniors' 
hospital bills, and then Medicare Part B will pay hardly anything for 
prevention.
  The administration would have the opportunity to work with Democrats 
and Republicans on a bipartisan basis to fix health care if someone 
such as Jim Nussle, confirmed as the head of Office of Management and 
Budget, wanted to change course with the administration's previous 
priorities.
  In his hearing in the Budget Committee, I noted Jim Nussle was 
interested in a number of key domestic issues in working for reforms. 
In my fair flat tax legislation, for example, we take away the 
discrimination against work in the Tax Code. Jim Nussle indicated he 
would be willing to work on tax reform and maybe can convince an 
administration that has not given the issue the time of day to get back 
to it.
  So it is my hope, having voted for the nominee in the committee 
because he pledged he would work on bipartisan issues such as health 
care and tax reform, to give him that opportunity. I have disagreed and 
disagreed profoundly with the administration's priorities, particularly 
as they relate to health care and taxes. It has been my sense--because 
in the Senate if you want to get anything done that is important, it 
has to be bipartisan--we need individuals to step up and say they are 
going to try to bring both sides together. My colleagues have mentioned 
that has not been the record, unfortunately, of Congressman Nussle in 
the past. But he told us at his confirmation hearing on key domestic 
issues--the domestic issues that are going to drive the future of 
America's economy--he would be willing to work in a bipartisan kind of 
way. We have given him that opportunity. We have given him that 
opportunity on the CHIP legislation, with four Senators working in a 
bipartisan way to help America's youngsters. Senator Bennett and I and 
Senators Alexander and Gregg and Nelson are giving that opportunity for 
broader health care reform as well.
  My hope is Jim Nussle will do what he pledged to do in his 
confirmation hearing, which is to work with both sides of the aisle so 
we do not waste another 2 years. That is really the alternative--just 
to say we are pretty much done until after the next election. Senator 
Bennett and I do not want to do that on fixing American health care. We 
have Senators who do not want to do that on the CHIP legislation. 
Because it is my hope Jim Nussle will try to work in a bipartisan way 
on these issues, I intend to vote for the nominee this afternoon.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Congressman Jim Nussle to serve as the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget.
  The Congressman served his Iowa district in the House through eight 
Congresses, chairing the House Budget Committee for the last three. 
During that time and in his testimony before both the Budget Committee 
and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the 
Congressman demonstrated an encyclopedic grasp of the Federal budget, 
skill in the legislative process, and an understanding of the 
importance of good relationships between the executive branch and 
Congress.
  A spirit of cooperation has seldom been so needed as it is right now. 
Much unfinished work on the appropriations bills awaits us. Before the 
end of next year, the work of transitioning to a new administration 
will begin. Regardless of which party occupies the White House, America 
will have moved steadily closer to a looming fiscal crisis as baby boom 
demographics collide with unfunded entitlement obligations. Devising a 
fiscal policy that will honor our commitments and meet vital needs 
without throttling economic growth will be a huge challenge for the 
Federal Government. I believe Congressman Nussle can help us meet that 
challenge. With his blend of knowledge, experience, and personal 
engagement--he told our committee in July: ``I love the budget''--
Congressman Nussle can help us define issues, illuminate choices, and 
debate decisions. His endorsements by Senator Tom Harkin and by House 
Democratic Budget Committee Chairman Spratt, as well as the 
overwhelming votes he received from both the Budget Committee and the 
Homeland Security Committee, demonstrate a bipartisan consensus for 
this nominee.
  As the Presiding Officer understands better than many people, 
budgets, of course, are not the only concern of the Office of 
Management and Budget. OMB also assists the President in developing and 
executing policies and programs. In particular, OMB is involved with 
legislative, regulatory, procurement, e-government, and management 
issues. It is not only a locus of authority within the executive branch 
but also a critical interface between the President and Congress, 
helping to set direction for the mechanisms of Government.
  As Director of OMB, Congressman Nussle would have great influence on 
a number of important policy issues aside from helping to formulate and 
present the President's budget.
  One of these critical issues is the amount of waste and the lack of 
effective oversight in Federal contracting. The committee which I was 
privileged to chair and now am the ranking member of, with Senator 
Lieberman as our chairman, held extensive hearings last year on the 
disaster responses on the gulf coast and also on contracting operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. We found the problems of waste, fraud, and 
abuse in Federal contracting are enormous. Here are just a few 
examples:
  We found that trailers bought to shelter disaster victims following 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were undeployable in the areas where they 
were most needed.
  We found repeated pipeline-laying attempts in Iraq used techniques 
unsuited to the terrain. We found problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
such as $2.3 million in contracts for the Babylon Police Academy in 
Iraq which was spent unnecessarily or without proper accounting and 
schools built in Afghanistan that collapsed under the weight of the 
first snow.
  Unfortunately, the examples of poor process and outrageous outcomes 
in our contracting system are legion, and they are not confined to 
disaster response or operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why 
several of us on the committee--Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Carper, 
Coleman, McCaskill and I--have joined in authoring legislation to 
improve our procurement system to obtain better value for taxpayers' 
dollars. I am hopeful our legislation, which was reported favorably by 
the committee on August 1, will soon be taken up by the full Senate. It 
would increase competition, transparency, and accountability in 
Government contracting and address the critical shortage of qualified 
Government procurement personnel.
  This issue is obviously a high priority for me, and I am encouraged 
by the Congressman's responses to my questions. They demonstrate his 
commitment to working to resolve the concerns many of us have about 
wasteful spending in Government contracting.
  He spoke of ``a broad range of issues that are in need of careful 
attention, including enhancing competition, strengthening the 
workforce, and improving transparency and accountability.'' I view this 
response by Congressman Nussle as an encouraging sign of a shared 
viewpoint on the need to improve performance in an area that accounts 
for more than $400 billion a year in spending.
  I was, however, less heartened by Congressman Nussle's responses to

[[Page 23363]]

questions about the Department of Homeland Security's grants for State 
and local programs, for assistance to firefighters, and for emergency 
management performance. These programs face great cuts under the budget 
proposed by the administration. Fortunately, we have acted to reject 
some of those proposed cuts and to respond in a more appropriate way.
  The DHS defense of these proposed cuts noted that substantial 
unexpended funds from prior years are still ``in the pipeline.'' 
Congressman Nussle appears to share the DHS view that this factor 
mitigates proposed budget cuts. As the National Governors Association 
has pointed out, however, planning and coordination to deal with new 
grants and the procurement process all take time, so that not every 
granted dollar can be swiftly committed. The Governors further note 
that States are, in fact, meeting statutory deadlines for obligating 
and expending funds.
  Homeland security grants are a critical factor in strengthening the 
Nation's security. These funds allow States and localities to fund 
planning, equipment, training, and exercises to prevent terrorist 
attacks; support intelligence gathering and information sharing through 
fusion centers; establish interoperable communications systems; prepare 
for mass-casualty incidents; and expand citizen involvement in all-
hazards emergency preparedness.
  I would encourage the Congressman, should he be confirmed--and I hope 
he will be--to reexamine the facts and figures on homeland security 
grants, particularly as we move into a new budget cycle for fiscal year 
2008. States and communities must receive adequate assistance to 
conduct their critical roles in helping to prevent terrorist attacks 
and respond to emergencies of all types.
  Turning from budget to management issues, I was also interested in 
Congressman Nussle's views on Federal agency performance as measured by 
the President's Management Scorecard. For most agencies, the weak spot 
is financial management. Indeed, poor financial management hobbles 
overall planning, management efforts, and the wise use of taxpayers' 
dollars in far too many agencies. At a time when making good use of 
every tax dollar is critical, it is simply intolerable for any agency 
to be unable to track how, when, for what purpose, and with what result 
it spends the taxpayers' money.
  In March of 2007, the OMB scorecard showed that 14 of 26 agencies 
received unsatisfactory marks in financial performance. But here is 
what is perhaps most ironic and most troubling: OMB itself, to my 
dismay, had the worst ratings of any agency surveyed, receiving 
unsatisfactory scores in four out of five areas.
  While noting various agencies' improvements in issuing timely 
financial statements, reducing auditor-identified weaknesses, and 
obtaining clean audit opinions, Congressman Nussle told us, ``We should 
not be satisfied if any Federal agency has unsatisfactory financial 
performance.'' Indeed, we shall not.
  I would note that Congressman Nussle told our committee that he 
considers OMB's management-scorecard rankings as ``unacceptably low'' 
and he has pledged to work to improve them as Director of OMB. I 
welcome that commitment, not simply because OMB should stand as an 
example to other executive branch agencies but also because its 
critical work with those agencies and with Congress demands high levels 
of efficiency and effectiveness.
  Madam President, I conclude by saying that the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee did an in-depth review of the 
Congressman's qualifications and experience and background for this 
important position. We grilled him on a whole range of issues: on 
matters ranging from pay-go principles and the alternative minimum tax 
to low-income heating assistance, to an issue of particular concern to 
my constituents, and that is the funding of Navy shipbuilding. While 
many policy disagreements will naturally arise in any such discussion, 
I believe there was broad agreement within our committee that 
Congressman Nussle has demonstrated, both in his long service in the 
House and in the nomination process, that he is well informed on the 
issues, highly qualified for the position, alert to other points of 
view, and will work closely with Congress as we tackle the enormous 
fiscal challenges facing this Nation.
  I believe Congressman Nussle would be an effective Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, and I urge my colleagues to support 
his nomination.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to express my intention 
to support the nomination of Congressman Jim Nussle as the next 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
  I do so because Congressman Nussle, in my judgment, falls comfortably 
within the standard I have set as I have had the honor to dispatch my 
responsibility under the advice and consent clause of the Constitution. 
To state it in nonconstitutional terms, I have always felt the standard 
I should apply is not whether I would present this nominee to the 
Senate--because under the Constitution that is not the Senate's 
responsibility; it is the President's authority and responsibility--the 
question would be, in dispatching my responsibility under the advice 
and consent clause, Do I conclude this individual whom the President 
has nominated is within an acceptable range for the particular job for 
which he has been nominated? On that basis, I have reached a conclusion 
that I will vote to support Congressman Nussle's nomination.
  I speak in my individual capacity, but I also obviously am honored to 
be the chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee, and will note for the Record that there were no negative 
votes in our committee on this nomination, and there was one 
abstention.
  This nomination would be a significant one no matter when it came 
before the Senate for a vote, because the Office of Management and 
Budget is a very significant and powerful office in our Government. But 
fate brings Mr. Nussle's nomination before us at a very important and 
challenging fiscal time in Washington and for our country. The fact is 
that in less than a month, Congress must enact 12 appropriations bills 
to fund the vital functions of the Federal Government for the fiscal 
year beginning October 1. We have much work ahead of us. It is 
difficult work, and it has been complicated by the numerous veto 
threats emerging from the White House about these appropriations bills. 
Some, as the Chair well knows, have even speculated that the ensuing 
confrontation will lead yet again to a shutdown of parts of the Federal 
Government. I hope not, because no one gains from such stalemate and 
such shutdowns.
  To meet our obligations to the American people, in this, as in so 
much else, we must reach across the partisan divide--as voters have so 
often made clear they want us to do. In this case, that means we must 
have a new Director of OMB who is not just competent but who is 
constructive. He must be a consensus builder, a willing partner with 
Congress, a mediator between the executive and legislative branches, 
working to solve problems and to accommodate legitimate differences of 
opinion. He must be a fiscal expert, but he must in the weeks ahead 
also be a statesman.
  I support this nomination of Congressman Nussle, but I do so with the 
understanding that the Congressman will have to exercise the full 
measure of his diplomatic skills at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to 
help bring the fiscal year 2008 budget and appropriations process to a 
satisfactory conclusion. There is a lot on the line in our achieving 
that end in a responsible and appropriate way. The Nation counts on it, 
but a lot of individual citizens of our Government who rely either on 
the security the Government provides or the services the Government 
provides count on us as well.
  We are a nation at war. Our soldiers in the field need critical 
funding to ensure their safety and the success of their mission. We are 
a nation still under threat of terrorist attack here at

[[Page 23364]]

home. Resources for our homeland security and for our first responders 
must be sufficient--more sufficient, I would add, in joining with 
Senator Collins on this--than the administration has provided to date, 
to allow our first responders and homeland protectors to do the jobs we 
expect them to do for us with the proper equipment and the proper 
training. We are a nation with an aging infrastructure. The Minneapolis 
bridge collapse last month was a clear warning that we cannot ignore 
the highway and transportation systems that move people and commerce in 
our dynamic and complex society. We have children going to schools 
across this country who depend on the investment the Federal Government 
makes in their education. We have senior citizens who depend on the 
Federal Government to not only protect their security but to provide a 
decent minimum standard of living in so many different ways for them in 
their senior years. These are just a few of the obligations we have to 
meet for our Nation and for our future.
  That is why it is so critical that on both ends of Pennsylvania 
Avenue, we come to this budget and appropriations task in the coming 
weeks with a sense of good faith and shared values as Americans who 
care about our future and our people. We cannot meet these obligations 
with confrontation or deadlock.
  Let me be specific about this. The key difference between Congress's 
fiscal year 2008 budget plan and President Bush's plan is the 
discretionary spending level. Congress established a level of $953 
billion. The President set his level at $933 billion. That is a $20 
billion difference. Now, $20 billion is a very significant amount of 
money, but it represents only 2 percent of all discretionary spending 
of the Federal Government as proposed for the coming fiscal year, and 
it represents less than 1 percent of all Federal expenditures. In other 
words, as a percentage of the budget we are dealing with, the enormous 
budget we are dealing with, this is a difference--less than 1 percent--
that reasonable people sharing a loyalty to our country ought to be 
able to resolve. It is not a difference that merits--2 percent, 1 
percent--not a difference that merits a shutdown of the U.S. Government 
in whole or in part. It is a difference that can and must be bridged by 
people who understand the budget process and are willing to forge 
consensus in the public interest.
  Congressman Nussle has considerable experience in budgetary matters, 
having served as chairman of the House Budget Committee from 2001 
through 2006 and on the House Ways and Means Committee. During his 
confirmation hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee, I asked Congressman Nussle if he would be willing to 
advise President Bush to remain open to compromise on spending levels 
to avoid a governmental shutdown. Congressman Nussle responded: ``I 
will remain open and I need to remain open.''
  That is part of the reason why I voted to report Congressman Nussle's 
nomination out of committee favorably. I repeat what I said at the 
beginning: Based on his experience, based on his intelligence he is 
comfortably within the range, in my judgment, of people who can serve 
as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and he is the 
person whom President Bush has set before us. But I will say that to 
me, it is critically important that Congressman Nussle keep the promise 
he made to our committee--that he will do everything in his power as 
the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget to avoid 
confrontation as we proceed to fund the Federal Government and its 
operations for 2008.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for up to an additional 5 
minutes, which I hope I will not use, from the time that has been 
allocated to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Achieving compromise on the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills is 
only one of the OMB Director's many critical responsibilities. He also 
has to help the President prepare and execute the budget for the 
following year across 14 Cabinet departments and more than 100 
executive agencies, boards, and commissions. The Director recommends 
where every taxpayer dollar is spent, oversees how each agency's 
programs are managed, and reviews vital roles for public health, worker 
safety, and environmental protection.
  The OMB Director is also the chief management officer of the Federal 
Government--the largest entity of this kind, or any kind, in the world 
today--overseeing how agencies conduct procurement, handle their 
finances, manage information technology, and carry out their 
operations. The numbers here--and I want to pause for a moment to 
stress the ``M'' part of OMB--the management part, which is often 
overlooked because it is the budget--the budgeting--that is the most 
publicly visible. The numbers here are startling and, I would add, 
disturbing and demand our attention and will, if confirmed, demand 
Congressman Nussle's attention. Government spending on contracts has 
exploded, while the trained workforce that oversees them has shrunk. 
This has already caused widely publicized and, I would add, infuriating 
examples of waste, and the problem will only worsen in the years ahead 
if we don't act to better protect taxpayer dollars spent on Federal 
Government contracting.
  Consider this: The U.S. Government is the largest buyer of goods and 
services in the world. I repeat: The U.S. Government is the largest 
buyer of goods and services in the world. Between 2000 and 2006, 
spending on Government contracts has grown from about $219 billion a 
year to $415 billion, an astounding 89-percent increase. Yet the number 
of Federal acquisition specialists--the people who negotiate and 
oversee the contracts for this $415 billion--these people in number 
have dropped dramatically. This is over a significant period of 
downsizing of the workforce in the 1990s and a small decrease in the 
last 6 years in response to an enormous increase in contracting. The 
numbers are particularly striking at the Department of Defense where 
the workforce has declined by nearly 50 percent since the mid 1990s. 
Governmentwide, the workforce is about to shrink even further if 
nothing is done, since roughly half the current Federal acquisition 
workforce is eligible to retire within the next 4 years. So it is 
imperative that Congressman Nussle, if confirmed, pay particular 
attention to this challenge: Federal Government buying, contracting, 
which involves more than $400 billion of taxpayers' hard-earned 
dollars.
  Let me conclude by saying some of what has been said in brief. I have 
had serious concerns about how budget responsibilities have been dealt 
with by the administration over the last 6\1/2\ years. While I 
understand that the next Director will not begin with a blank slate, 
his performance will be judged by how well he comes to grips with some 
of these inherited problems. The next OMB Director will likely be 
President Bush's last OMB Director. He will have the opportunity to 
craft policy that will be a lasting legacy, and let's hope it is a 
lasting legacy of responsibility and fairness. I urge that if 
confirmed, Congressman Nussle take a long view of that legacy and work 
to achieve both the fiscal soundness and fairness that has too often 
been absent from this administration's record to date.
  For the past several years, we have wrestled with politics and 
partisan confrontation here in Washington, and generally speaking, not 
only have all of us lost, but more importantly, the American people and 
the public interest have lost. As the 2008 election season shifts now 
into high gear, we cannot let that increasingly partisan environment 
culminate in fiscal and governmental chaos. To meet our obligations, we 
must work together as voters demand for the greater good of our 
country. Jim Nussle will have a great opportunity and an equally great 
responsibility to see to it that we do that.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me begin by thanking the majority

[[Page 23365]]

leader, Senator Reid, and Budget Chairman Kent Conrad for their strong 
statements in opposition to the Nussle nomination. I think that is the 
right position, and I appreciate them speaking out on it.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I placed a hold on the 
nomination of former Congressman Jim Nussle to become OMB Director and 
I voted against his confirmation at the committee level.
  The reason I did that is not because I have any personal animus 
toward Mr. Nussle. I have known Jim Nussle for over 16 years. We served 
in the House together, and I like him. So this is not personal. The 
reason I strongly oppose Mr. Nussle becoming the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget has, in fact, little to do with Mr. Nussle and 
everything to do with the failed economic policies of the Bush 
administration.
  The problem is, the President and his advisers have become 
increasingly isolated and out of touch with the economic realities 
facing ordinary Americans. The simple truth is that the middle class 
continues to shrink, poverty has increased over the last 6 years, the 
gap between the rich and everyone else is growing wider, and millions 
of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. Meanwhile, in 
the midst of all of this, President Bush continues to tell the American 
people day after day how great and how wonderful the economy is doing. 
This is an insult to American workers and is something that should end, 
and end now.
  This President needs an OMB Director who can provide a sense of 
reality with regard to the economic conditions facing ordinary 
Americans and not continue to perpetrate a false mythology. That is 
what this debate is all about.
  Year after year, President Bush, members of his administration, and 
his advisers, in almost an Orwellian sense, have sounded like a broken 
record on the economy. They have told the American people over and over 
again that the economy--I am now going to use quotes that come directly 
from the President and his administration--is ``strong and getting 
stronger.'' The economy is ``thriving.'' The economy is ``robust.'' The 
economy is ``vibrant.'' The economy is ``solid.'' The economy is 
``booming.'' The economy is ``powerful.'' The economy is ``fantastic.'' 
The economy is ``amazing.'' The economy is ``just marvelous.''
  Those are quotes that come from the President, his administration, 
and his advisers. That is what the President and his administration are 
telling the American people.
  Now, let's look at reality. How can President Bush and his advisers 
claim that this economy is robust when nearly 5 million Americans have 
slipped into poverty since the year 2000, including over 1 million 
children? We hear a lot about family values in Washington, and I hope 
when people talk about family values, they are talking about our kids, 
the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society.
  How can a significant increase in poverty since Bush has been 
President among our children occur at the same time as he describes 
this economy as ``robust''? This is absurd. This is insulting.
  How can the President and his advisers claim the economy is vibrant 
when the median income for working-age families has declined by about 
$2,400 since President Bush has been in office? The reality is, from 
2001 through 2005, the bottom 90 percent of households experienced a 
4.2-percent decline in their market-based incomes, representing a loss 
of over $1,200 per household on average. How does that sound like a 
vibrant economy?
  Madam President, how can the President of the United States and his 
advisers claim that ``the economy is strong and getting stronger,'' 
when the personal savings rate has been below zero for eight 
consecutive quarters--something that has not occurred since the Great 
Depression? What this means is, with increased energy costs, increased 
health care costs, increased education costs, and other increased 
expenses, the average American is now spending more money than he or 
she is earning. More money is going out than is coming in. In other 
words, people are going deeper and deeper into debt. This doesn't sound 
to me like an economy that is ``strong and getting stronger.''
  How can the President and his advisers claim that the economy is 
``healthy''--that is another word they have used--when 8.6 million 
Americans have lost their health insurance since the year 2000, and a 
record-breaking 47 million Americans are uninsured, with millions more 
underinsured? That doesn't sound too healthy to me. All over this 
country we find workers who are losing their health insurance. We find 
people who are paying more and more for, in many instances, inferior 
coverage, and you have a President out there saying this economy is 
``healthy.'' Well, I am sure many of those people who just lost their 
health insurance this last year would be quite surprised to find that 
this economy is ``healthy.''
  How can this President and his advisers claim that the economy is 
``thriving,'' when, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 35 
million Americans in our country struggled to put food on the table 
last year, and the number of the hungriest Americans keeps going up? 
How do you have an economy that is thriving when more and more people 
are hungry and when millions of our fellow citizens have a difficult 
time putting food on the table? This is not a thriving economy. Hunger 
in America is a national disgrace.
  Madam President, how can the President of the United States and his 
advisers claim that our economy is ``booming''--that is another word 
they have used--when college students today are graduating deeper and 
deeper in debt, with the average student now owing $20,000 upon 
graduation. Even more disturbing, some 400,000 qualified high school 
students don't go to college in the first place because they cannot 
afford it and because they do not want to come out of school tens and 
tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Does this sound like a booming 
economy to you? Well, tell that to the young people in this country who 
can no longer afford to go to college. Tell them about how the economy 
is ``booming.''
  How can the President of the United States and his advisers claim 
that our economy is ``fantastic'' when home foreclosures are now the 
highest on record, turning the American dream of home ownership into an 
American nightmare for millions of families?
  How can the President and his economic advisers claim that the 
economy is ``powerful'' when the number of working families paying more 
than half of their limited incomes on housing has decreased by 72 
percent since 1997? So you have people working hard, 50, 60 hours a 
week and, because of the high cost of housing and their limited 
incomes, they are spending more than 50 percent of what they earn on 
housing.
  How can the President of the United States and his economic advisers 
claim that our economy is ``the envy of the world'' when the U.S. has 
the highest rate of childhood poverty, the highest infant mortality 
rate among major countries, the highest overall poverty rate, the 
largest gap between the rich and the poor, and we remain the only 
country in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care 
to all people through a national health care program? How is that 
economy the ``envy of the world''?
  How can the President and his advisers claim that the economy is 
``amazing'' when we have lost over 3 million good-paying manufacturing 
jobs since the year 2000, mainly due to our record-breaking $765 
billion trade deficit? Well, tell workers in the State of Vermont and 
all over this country about how amazing the economy is when their 
plants are shut down, when their jobs go to China, and when, if they 
are lucky enough to find a new job, in most cases that job will pay 
substantially less than the job they used to have. Tell the white-
collar information technology workers whose jobs are going to India how 
``fantastic'' the economy is, when their new jobs pay less than the 
jobs they used to have.
  How can this President and his economic advisers claim the economy is

[[Page 23366]]

``vibrant'' when the number of college graduates earning poverty-level 
wages has more than doubled over the past 15 years?
  My goal this afternoon is not to engage in a major debate on the 
economy or what proposals we need to improve the economic life of 
working people. That is an enormously important debate and one that I 
hope we have sooner than later, but it is not really today's debate. My 
goal today, and the reason I put a hold on the Nussle nomination, is 
simply to make the point that the Bush administration is completely out 
of touch with the economic reality facing tens of millions of American 
families, and that we need an OMB Director and an economic adviser who 
will make this President understand what the ordinary American family 
is going through.
  Let me give you an example of why we desperately need an OMB Director 
who can do this. While the President of the United States and his 
advisers tell us how ``robust'' and how ``vibrant'' and how ``strong'' 
the American economy is, well, the people of our country, the people 
who live in that economy, the people who work in that economy have a 
different perception of reality than the gentleman in the Oval Office.
  In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, published last month, more 
than two-thirds of the American people said they believe the U.S. 
economy is either in recession now or will be in recession next year. 
That is what the American people are saying, the people who are living 
the economy. They are saying that despite the daily assertions of 
President Bush and his advisers. Further, 72 percent of Americans 
surveyed in a mid-August Gallup poll said the economy was ``getting 
worse.'' That is the most pessimistic outlook on the economy since 
Gallup began asking that question in the early 1990s.
  Madam President, we have a real disconnect. We have a situation in 
which the American people are experiencing a certain reality, telling 
us about a certain reality, and a President who is living in a very 
different world.
  The President keeps telling us how great the economy is doing, but 
the American people who work every day, who pay their bills every 
month, who are trying to provide health care for their families and a 
college education for their kids are not buying it. In other words, the 
people who are living in this economy have a very different perspective 
on reality than does this President and his advisers, and that creates 
a very dangerous situation which must be corrected by an OMB Director 
who lives in the real world and who can give this President some real-
world advice.
  What people understand in their guts and what they fear the most is 
that if economic trends continue along the same path they have been 
going for the last many years, we will see for the first time in the 
modern history of this country that our kids, the next generation, will 
have a lower standard of living than we do.
  What the American dream has always been and what my family, which 
never had much money, experienced and what millions of American 
families have experienced is that if you work hard and you save your 
money, your children will have a better economic life, more 
opportunities than you do. That is what every parent's dream is: That 
their kids will do better than they did.
  But I am afraid this American dream is rapidly disappearing. I am 
afraid that with so many American families, the American dream has 
become an American nightmare. To cite one source--and there are many 
others--a recent joint study by the Pew Charitable Trust and the 
Brookings Institution found that men in their early thirties earned on 
average 12 percent less in 2004 than their fathers did in 1974 after 
adjusting for inflation. In other words, for millions of families, 
despite a huge increase in worker productivity, we are moving in 
exactly the wrong direction. Workers are producing more but, in many 
cases, they are worse off than their parents.
  President Bush desperately needs an OMB Director who is not afraid to 
tell the President the truth about these harsh economic realities and 
not be an echo, not repeat the mythology that this President and his 
advisers are bringing forth. President Bush needs a Budget Director who 
will make him face the facts and not his fantasies. Perhaps most 
importantly, President Bush needs a Budget Director who is willing to 
compromise with those of us in Congress who are fighting for the needs 
of working families and are not here to represent the wealthiest people 
in this country and the largest corporations.
  Unfortunately, there is nothing in former Congressman Jim Nussle's 
background to suggest he is that person. Quite the contrary. I must 
say, I am amused to hear some of my colleagues say: Well, we were at a 
hearing with Mr. Nussle and we asked him a question and he said he is 
open to doing this and doing that. That is wonderful at a confirmation 
hearing. I worked with Mr. Nussle for 16 years in the House. He was 
chairman of the House Budget Committee for 6 years. His record is 
clear. Pay attention to the record rather than what someone might or 
might not say in a confirmation hearing.
  Let me suggest where I think the confusion in this whole discussion 
lies, where the disconnect lies. That is that when President Bush tells 
us the economy is doing great, that it is robust, that it is vibrant--
all of his adjectives--the truth is he is right in one sense. He is 
right in one sense. The economy is not doing well for the vast majority 
of our people who are in the middle class. The economy is certainly not 
doing well for working families who, in many cases, work longer hours 
for low wages. The economy is not doing well for our lower income 
citizens. Poverty has increased significantly since President Bush has 
been in the White House. But the economy, we must admit, is doing well 
and, in fact, doing very well for the wealthiest people in this 
country, and that is true.
  So I think the confusion lies in that when the President says the 
economy is doing great, what he means is that the economy is doing 
great for his wealthy friends and for the CEOs of the largest 
corporations in America. I admit he is right in that regard.
  If you look at the world from the perspective of CEOs of large 
corporations who now make over 350 times what their workers make, if 
you look at the economy from the perspective of hedge fund managers, 
some of whom make hundreds of millions of dollars a year, if you look 
at the economy from the perspective of people who have more money than 
they know what to do with, who are literally building yachts that are 
longer than a football field, I can understand how one could come to 
the conclusion that the economy is doing very well because from their 
point of view, from their reality, the economy is doing very well.
  Today the simple truth is the upper 1 percent of families in America 
have not had it so good since the 1920s. So I concede, President Bush, 
you are right. For all your friends who are in the top 1 percent, the 
economy is doing very well. But some of us--maybe not all of us but 
some of us--are here not to represent the richest 1 percent; we are 
kind of worried about the bottom 90 percent, the bottom 50 percent, the 
ordinary people who go to work every single day and are struggling hard 
to keep their heads above water and to provide the necessities of life 
for their kids.
  In 2005, the last available figures I have, while average incomes for 
the bottom 90 percent--that is where most of the folks are--the bottom 
90 percent of Americans declined by $172, the wealthiest 1/100th of 1 
percent reported an average income of $25.7 million, a 1-year increase 
of $4.4 million. Let me repeat that because I think this deals with the 
confusion of why the President thinks the economy is doing so good.
  The income of the bottom 90 percent of Americans declined by $172 
while the income of the wealthiest 1/100th of 1 percent increased by 
$4.4 million.
  In 2005, the top 1 percent of Americans received the largest share of 
national income since 1928. Today, rather incredibly--and I was 
interested in hearing a colleague of mine talking

[[Page 23367]]

about, oh, my goodness, the wealthy are paying so much in taxes. Well, 
there is a reason, because today, incredibly, the top 300,000 
Americans--300,000--now earn nearly as much as the bottom 150 million 
Americans combined; 300,000 earning almost as much income as the bottom 
150 million Americans combined.
  This constitutes by far the most unequaled distribution of income in 
any major country on Earth, and that gap continues to grow wider and 
wider. This is an issue this Congress must address. It is not 
acceptable. People keep talking in a general sense about the economy 
while ignoring the people in the economy. We have to focus on this 
growing income in wealth disparity in this country.
  While millions of Americans--it is true in my State of Vermont and it 
is true all over this country--are working two and three jobs trying to 
cobble together an income and perhaps some health insurance, the 
collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 
billion last year to $1.25 trillion, according to Forbes magazine.
  Let me repeat that statement because it is an astounding fact. The 
collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans--400 is not a lot 
of people--increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion. 
Remember, at the same time as the personal savings rate is below zero 
and millions of Americans are going deeper and deeper into debt, the 
collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 
billion.
  That is what this economy is doing. The top 1 percent now owns more 
wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and the reality is the rich are 
getting richer, the middle class is shrinking, and the gap between the 
very wealthiest people in our society and everyone else is growing 
wider and wider. We are becoming very different countries--people on 
top live in a certain world, and the vast majority of people are living 
in another world entirely.
  What does all of this have to do with the next Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget, which is what we are here this afternoon to 
discuss? In my opinion, it has a whole lot to do with who should become 
the next Director of the OMB.
  A Federal budget--and our budget is now almost $3 trillion--is more 
than a long list of numbers. The Federal budget, as any family budget, 
is a statement of our Nation's values and our priorities. It is not any 
different, except the numbers are astronomical, that every family has 
to deal with: How do they spend their money? Where do they spend their 
money? What are their priorities? It is the same debate we have in the 
Senate. The Federal budget is a statement about what our country is 
about, what we stand for, and who we are as a people.
  We would all, I believe, find it irresponsible and counterproductive 
if a family whom we knew, whom we observed, went out and bought a great 
big car and they bought a great big boat and went on fancy vacations to 
Las Vegas, all the while neglecting their kids at home. The kids were 
ill clothed, ill fed, ill taken care of. We would say that family is 
irresponsible.
  We need to use those same values when we look at the budget of the 
United States of America. Preparing the Federal budget encompasses the 
same set of values. It is about spending taxpayers' dollars where we 
should be spending them and not spending them where we should not be 
spending them. It is about taking a hard look at the needs of all our 
people, especially those who are most in need, and prioritizing that 
budget in an intelligent, fair, and rational way. That is what an OMB 
Director is supposed to do. That is what his or her job description is.
  In February, the President told us about his values and his 
priorities when he submitted his fiscal year 2008 budget to Congress. 
Fortunately, thanks to the excellent work of Chairman Conrad, the 
Senate rejected the President's budget and passed a budget resolution 
that was much more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans, and I 
thank Chairman Conrad for doing that. I had the opportunity of working 
with him as a member of the Budget Committee. But as we in the Senate 
all know, even though the budget resolution conference report passed 
the House and the Senate in May, that is a first step. It is the annual 
appropriations bills that actually provide the funding which keeps our 
Federal Government running. Unlike the budget resolution, which cannot 
be vetoed, the President has the opportunity to veto each and every 
appropriations bill that comes across his desk, and with very few 
exceptions, this is exactly what the President has threatened to do 
unless Congress accepts his overall spending requests.
  In other words, the President has said to Congress: It is my way or 
the highway. We will do it my way or I will veto what you are proposing 
to do. This is the wrong way to negotiate with Congress on the 
appropriations process. The President needs someone to advise him that 
a budget should address the needs of all the American people and not 
just the wealthiest people in our country. The President needs an 
adviser to tell him that it is more important to pay attention to 
working families all over this country, many of whom are falling 
further and further behind--to pay attention to those families rather 
than a handful of billionaires. Frankly, based on his record in 
Congress, I am afraid Mr. Nussle will not do that. He is the wrong man 
for this position at this particular moment in American history.
  Now, let me say a few words about the President's budget that he is 
so adamant that Congress adopt. Let's look at the values and the 
priorities this President is proposing. The President has proposed in 
his budget, despite the growing health care crisis in this country, 
that he wishes to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $280 billion over the 
next decade, lowering the quality of health care for approximately 43 
million senior citizens and people with disabilities who depend on 
Medicare, and more than 50 million Americans who rely on Medicaid. That 
is his priority--cut Medicare, cut Medicaid.
  Even worse--and to me this is a deeply moral issue in a nation that 
already has the disgrace of having the highest rate of childhood 
poverty in the industrialized world; over 18 percent of our kids are in 
poverty--at a time when 8.7 million children have no health insurance, 
the President has refused to adequately fund the Children's Health 
Insurance Program in his budget. Now, here is where the President needs 
some good advice. But I have listened and I haven't heard that advice 
coming from Mr. Nussle. He has had the opportunity. He was nominated a 
while back.
  Last month, as we all know, the Senate voted by a 68-to-31 margin to 
expand the SCHIP program to provide an additional 3 million children in 
our country with health insurance. Eighteen Republican Senators thought 
this was a good idea, and virtually everybody on our side of the aisle 
voted for it. Although I believe the Senate should have done much 
more--I believe all of our children should be covered--this is clearly 
a step in the right direction. The House passed an even more generous 
bill to expand SCHIP, with the support of some Republicans. But instead 
of working with the Senate and the House, the President issued veto 
threats on both of these bills.
  What will Mr. Nussle's advice be on this issue? Will he tell the 
President that it is an international disgrace that we are the only 
major country on Earth that doesn't provide health care to all of our 
people and that we have to address that immediately? Will he tell the 
President to rescind his veto threat? I doubt it. I doubt it very much. 
Based on his track record of chairmanship of the House Budget Committee 
for 6 years, I don't think that is going to happen.
  While the President does not believe we have enough money to increase 
health insurance coverage for children, it has been reported that the 
President will be asking for another $50 billion for the misguided war 
in Iraq. Fifty billion dollars in additional funding for the Iraq war, 
but we don't have $5 billion to $10 billion a year to provide health 
insurance to millions of uninsured kids. It is time the President had a 
budget director who is willing to say:

[[Page 23368]]

Excuse me, Mr. President, but that is wrong. That is not what this 
country is about. It is time to get our priorities straight. I am 
afraid Mr. Nussle will not be the OMB Director who does that.
  What else does the President's budget have to say about the 
priorities of this country? What about our kids? What about childcare? 
Every psychologist understands, and many books and papers have been 
written on it, that the most formative years of a person's life are 
from 0 to 3. That is when their intellectual capabilities develop; that 
is when their emotional capabilities develop. Now, what are we doing 
for our kids in general and what are we doing with regard to childcare? 
At a time when working families in Vermont and all across this country 
are searching desperately for quality, affordable childcare, the Bush 
budget reduces the number of children receiving childcare assistance by 
300,000 kids. Mr. Bush tells us he believes no child should be left 
behind. By this proposal, however, he is not only leaving 300,000 
children behind, but, because of inadequate funding for childcare, he 
is denying millions of children the opportunities they need so they can 
succeed in school.
  Amazingly, childcare fees today are higher than college tuition at a 
4-year public university in 42 States in this country. In other words, 
we have a major childcare crisis in America. The President needs an OMB 
Director to tell him and explain to him that you don't cut childcare 
when working families all over this country are desperately searching 
out affordable childcare. Will Mr. Nussle be doing that? I doubt that.
  Madam President, what I wish to do at this time is reserve the 
remainder of my time. There are some other issues I want to raise 
regarding the nomination of Mr. Nussle, but I think the key point I 
want to make is that what this debate is about is do we need another 
OMB Director who continues to support and push policies which benefit 
the wealthiest people in this country at the expense of the vast 
majority of working families or do we need an OMB Director who will 
speak truth to power and who, in fact, explains to the American people 
the reality facing the economic lives of working families in this 
country.
  There are some other points I want to make, Madam President, but I am 
going to reserve the remainder of my time at this point.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, Senator Lieberman has indicated he 
wishes to give back his time and that I might consume it, so I ask 
unanimous consent at this point that be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am going to take a few minutes, but I 
will state for the information of my colleague, Senator Allard of 
Colorado, who is going to then take some time, that Senator Sanders has 
said it very well. First, I want to say he is a valuable member of the 
Senate Budget Committee. He is thoughtful, he does his homework, and he 
has come here with a message that I think is very clear.
  I think of my own family. I think of growing up in Bismarck, ND. My 
parents were killed when I was young, so I was sort of a group project. 
I was raised by my grandparents and my three uncles and aunts and their 
families, so I was raised in four families. When I was growing up, we 
had a middle-class family. We were in the newspaper business, the 
printing and publishing business, and my family were middle class. In 
every case, the woman of the household stayed home until the kids were 
away in school. And we had a lot of kids. We had 13 kids in our family, 
and that includes cousins of mine. Every one of them got a college 
education. Every one of them got an advanced degree, and that was on 
middle-class income.
  Now, you think about that today. There is no middle-class family who 
could have the things we had, who grew up the way we grew up, who had 
the opportunity to get an advanced education. And every single one of 
these--my two brothers and my cousins--every single one of them got an 
advanced degree on middle-class incomes, and yet the women stayed home. 
They did not work in the workplace. They did not work for a wage. They 
worked at home. They worked very hard raising these kids. They did a 
spectacular job of that. But that can't happen today. The woman or the 
man can't stay home while raising the kids before they go to school 
because they need the income to get by, to pay the mortgage, to pay for 
the car, and to save some money to help kids go to school.
  Our society has been transformed. Talk about family values. Those 
were family values, because there was a value on being able to raise 
kids and give them a happy and healthy home life and have the resources 
to go to school.
  Now I heard some claims here by the other side earlier that are truly 
astounding--absolutely astounding. They are talking about how 
successful this fiscal policy has been. Where have they been? Here is 
the result of the fiscal policy of this administration, and the fiscal 
policy for which Mr. Nussle was a key architect. It is a policy of 
debt, deficits, and decline--the three Ds. Here is the record on debt. 
They took the debt after the President's first year, $5.8 trillion, and 
at the end of this year it is going to be almost $9 trillion. Now this 
is a fact. This is no projection. This is what has happened.
  Then I heard, well, the Democratic budget has got the biggest tax 
increase in history. It was remarkable to listen to some of the 
comments. We heard variously that the tax increase in the Democratic 
budget was $200 billion, then it got to be $700 billion, and then it 
was $900 billion. Well, whoa. Talk about variation. We had a $200 
billion tax increase, a $700 billion tax increase, and a $900 billion 
tax increase. Which is it?
  I tell you the reason they can't tell you is because there is no tax 
increase. There is no tax increase proposed in this budget. None. In 
fact, there is substantial tax relief, tax relief for middle-class 
families, because they are the ones who truly need it.
  Here are the facts. This is the revenue over 5 years in the budget 
resolution that passed the Senate--$14,828 trillion. It is a big 
number, isn't it? How much do you think the President said his budget 
would raise over that same period? Here is what he said his budget 
would raise--$14,826 trillion. Do you notice there is almost no 
difference? The President said his budget would raise $14,826 trillion. 
That is not my claim about his budget, that is his claim about his 
budget. Our budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will 
raise $14,828 trillion. Where is this huge tax increase? Where is it?
  If we look at the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate both 
budgets, here is what we see. The green line is the revenue of our 
budget. The red line is the President's. There is a small difference--a 
2-percent difference. A 2-percent difference. That is according to the 
Congressional Budget Office. Now, let us assume for a moment their way. 
Let's say there is 2 percent more revenue. Where would we get it 
without a tax increase? Well, the first place we would go is the tax 
gap. The IRS estimates that the tax gap for a single year, the 
difference between what is owed and what is paid, is $345 billion. That 
is for 1 year. If we got just that, we would completely eliminate the 
difference between the revenue in our proposal and the revenue in the 
President's. Of course, this is a 5-year budget. We just need 1 year of 
the tax gap.
  The Senator from New Hampshire says we cannot get that much. Let's 
assume he is right. Let's say you can't get that much. Is that the only 
place you can look for revenue without a tax increase? Oh, no.
  There is a place down in the Cayman Islands called the Ugland House. 
It is a five-story building. It is the home to 12,748 companies. Isn't 
that amazing? All those companies, 12,748 companies, claim they are 
doing business out of this little five-story building. Does anybody 
believe that the 12,748 companies are engaged in business out of this 
little building?
  They are not engaged in business. They are engaged in monkey 
business, and the monkey business they are engaged in is avoiding taxes 
here. What

[[Page 23369]]

are they doing? Here is what they are doing. They are engaged in 
offshore tax haven scams. Here is what they say. Go on the Internet and 
you know what you will find? You put in the words about tax havens, 
here is what you get--1.2 million hits. A lot of people out there are 
being inventive about how to avoid taxes. Hear is what they say.

       Your money belongs to you and that means that it belongs 
     offshore.

  Why do they want to put the money offshore? Because they don't want 
to pay any taxes here. Here is my favorite:

       Live tax free and worldwide on a luxury yacht--moving 
     offshore and living tax free just got easier.

  Come on, do you know how much money the Government of the United 
States says is being lost to this kind of scam? Here is the Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations from February of this year. They said:

       Experts have estimated that the total loss to the Treasury 
     from offshore tax evasion alone approaches $100 billion per 
     year.

  Some of us say we ought to shut it down and stop this outrage. That 
is tax increase? No. That is no tax increase. That is requiring people 
to pay taxes they already owe. If we got just half of this money, half 
of it, we could meet our budget numbers with no tax increase.
  Some don't want to do a thing around here. They want these scams to 
continue. Let them stand up and defend them. And while they are at it, 
defend this. Abusive tax shelters--what is this a picture of? That is a 
sewer system in Europe. What does that have to do with the budget of 
the United States? It turns out it has a lot to do with it because we 
have companies in the United States and wealthy investors who have 
bought sewer systems in Europe. Why? Do they want to run sewer systems 
in Europe? Oh, no, they don't run the sewer system. They buy it and 
depreciate it on their books for U.S. tax purposes and lease it back to 
the European cities that built it in the first place.
  Do you know that is costing us $40 or $50 billion a year, tax shelter 
scams? If we shut those down, we could meet our budget with no tax 
increase. So please don't come out here and give me this about the 
biggest tax increase in history. There is no tax increase. Is there 
more revenue? According to the President there is no difference in 
revenue between our plan and his plan. If you look at what he would 
claim his revenue system would produce, it is virtually identical to 
what we say ours will produce.
  But let's accept Congressional Budget Office numbers. They say there 
is 2 percent more revenue in your plan. Let me say, I believe you could 
achieve that by closing down these abusive tax shelters, closing down 
these offshore tax havens that the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations says is costing us $100 billion a year, or at least 
reducing the tax gap, the difference between what is owed and what is 
paid. The vast majority of us pay what we owe. How are we allowing $340 
billion a year to go unpaid by others?
  When I hear people say this is the biggest tax increase, that is just 
not true. There is no proposed tax increase in the budget that we 
offered--none. And that is a fact.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of 
Congressman Jim Nussle, the President's nominee to be Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, referred to commonly as OMB.
  I am pleased the President chose someone with such an extensive 
knowledge of the Federal budget process to succeed the very able 
Director, Rob Portman. I had the pleasure of serving under Congressman 
Nussle when he was chairman of the House Budget Committee. I came into 
the House the same time he did, so I have had an opportunity to work 
extensively with what I think is an outstanding individual. There I 
witnessed firsthand his expertise in the budget process.
  As chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Nussle worked 
effectively with fellow House Members, Senators, and the President to 
shape the Federal budget--much like he will be required to do if 
confirmed as Director of OMB. Moreover, throughout his service in 
Congress, Congressman Nussle demonstrated a firm commitment to fiscal 
responsibility, restoring and maintaining fiscal discipline, starting 
with this year's appropriations process.
  It is essential to keeping our economy strong and growing. The fact 
is, today's economy is strong. More than 8 million jobs have been 
created since August of 2003, unemployment is at historical lows, and 
paychecks are rising. One of the reasons we are enjoying a strong 
economy today is because the Republican Congress and the President 
created conditions for individuals and small businesses to thrive. 
These progrowth economic policies included reducing income tax rates, 
reducing capital gains and dividend tax rates, reducing the estate and 
gift taxes, and increasing incentives for small business investment.
  If we neglect extending all these taxes that I just ran off--they all 
have a termination date on them. If we neglect extending these tax 
reductions, the end result is it is going to be the largest tax 
increase in the history of this country by neglect. The chairman of the 
Budget Committee is right. They don't have any overt proposal to 
increase taxes. But by neglect and refusing to renew these taxes that 
are going to be expiring in a few years, the net result is that the tax 
rates are going to increase on our progrowth, economic tax reduction 
provisions that we put in place, which was reducing the income tax, 
reducing capital gains and dividend taxes, reducing estate and gift 
taxes, and increasing incentives for small business investment.
  My view is in this country, if you really want to see economic 
growth, you target the small business sector. That is what the 
proeconomic growth policy did, and we saw the results of that, 
resulting in sizable revenue increases to the Federal Government as 
well as our States throughout this country. The economic growth 
stimulated by these policies not only led to more money in the pockets 
of the American people, it has led to increased Federal revenue and 
reduced deficits. Since 2003, revenues have rebounded sharply, 
following several years of decline. Last year, revenues were up almost 
12 percent, to $2.4 trillion, the highest in our Nation's history. As a 
result, we cut the budget deficit in half several years ahead of 
schedule and put ourselves on a path toward balancing the budget. That 
is important to me, and I think it is important to the American people 
to have us on a path toward balancing the budget. I think it is 
important to the American people that we continue our progrowth 
policies. After all, that means more jobs.
  In addition to its well-known budgetary function, the Office of 
Management and Budget is also charged with an equally important, albeit 
I would say lesser known function, and that is management 
responsibility. President Bush, with initiatives like the President's 
Management Agenda and the Program Assessment Rating Tool, referred to 
by many as PART, has given the Office of Management and Budget and the 
Congress the management tools they need as overseers of a large and 
complex and sometimes cumbersome bureaucracy. In fact, if the American 
people want to see how these various agencies are performing, all they 
need to do is get on the Internet and go to expectmore.gov. You are 
going to find an assessment of the agencies and how they are doing, 
whether they are operating efficiently, spending taxpayer dollars in a 
responsible way, or whether they are being ineffective, and various 
grades in between that, or are they absolutely ignoring any attempt to 
be accountable to the way in which the taxpayer dollars are being 
spent.
  As a result, on that Web page you are going to see ``no results 
demonstrated.'' They just kind of thumbed their noses at the taxpayers 
and the President and anybody out here trying

[[Page 23370]]

to build accountability to agency spending. This program helps Members 
of Congress, helps members of the administration, and helps the 
taxpayer out here if they want to take the time to look it up on the 
Internet, just to see how the various agencies are performing. You 
might be surprised as to which agencies show up as not even making an 
effort to be accountable to the taxpayers as to how their tax dollars 
are being spent.
  OMB's management tools are critical to Congress's ability to hold 
agencies and programs accountable and ensure that taxpayer dollars are 
being spent wisely. Congressman Nussle has assured me that he will give 
due deference to the ``M'' which stands for ``management'' in the OMB. 
I have impressed upon him how important it is that we encourage the 
agencies to continue to try to demonstrate results on their 
effectiveness and not ignore it because it is what we need to 
responsibly put forward legislation in budgets and appropriations 
bills.
  I think this vote is a referendum on the economy, but let's look and 
see what is happening with the economy. It is doing well. New jobs are 
being created. Income is coming in at record high rates. America is 
doing well.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting Congressman Nussle 
who, I believe, is a highly qualified nominee who is deserving of 
Senate confirmation. I am pleased the Budget Committee favorably 
reported Congressman Nussle with broad bipartisan support. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this confirmation today.
  It is important that we move forward with budget accountability. We 
need to confirm the Director of the OMB quickly, so he can get moving 
forward with his responsibilities. I am here to strongly endorse my 
good friend and colleague, Congressman Nussle. I hope the other Members 
of this body will join me in voting to support his confirmation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this nomination of Congressman Nussle as 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget will put him at a 
critical place at a critical time. The OMB has been a powerful part of 
this administration, making key decisions on revenue, spending, 
transparency and regulation. And the new Director will play a major 
role in shaping both the remainder of this President's term as well as 
the outlook of the next.
  One of OMB's most important functions each year is to help generate 
the President's budget request. With unprecedented levels of debt 
mounting ever higher, the Nation's budget blueprint must begin to 
reflect wise choices.
  Unfortunately, the pattern of this administration so far has been one 
of fiscal recklessness. The President's tax cuts have reduced revenue 
to the Treasury by $1 trillion and will cost an additional $300 billion 
in 2007 alone. Over the past 5 years we have spent half a trillion 
dollars in Iraq, and we are continuing to spend $10 billion a month for 
that war.
  Our current total debt is closing in on $9 trillion, which means that 
each American's share is nearly $30,000. And the budget President Bush 
submitted to Congress in February would continue that trend. It would 
increase the gross Federal debt by nearly $3 trillion to $11.5 trillion 
by 2012. That means each American's share of the debt would rise to a 
whopping $38,000.
  The administration needs to turn over a new leaf of fiscal 
responsibility, and the new Director of OMB must be at the forefront of 
that effort. Digging out of this ditch of debt will take serious 
bipartisan cooperation and it will require Congress and the 
administration to work together. This includes deciding how to most 
fairly raise revenue and on which priorities to spend it. And it will 
mean putting aside partisanship of the moment to tackle the long-term 
economic challenges. We need an OMB Director who is fully committed to 
working with Congress to tackle this difficult and pressing problem.
  Another critical function of OMB for which Congressman Nussle will be 
responsible is the management side. OMB plays an important role in the 
Federal Government's efforts to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse by 
pursuing management reforms, evaluating the effectiveness of Federal 
programs, and providing oversight of agency reports, rules, testimony 
and proposed legislation. OMB can exert great influence on public 
policy and I believe it is imperative that the person selected to run 
OMB be willing and able to work with both parties in Congress to face 
the extraordinary challenges ahead.
  I will support this nomination, and I am hopeful that Congressman 
Nussle can meet the many challenges OMB faces at this critical time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will vote for former Congressman 
Nussle to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. As a 
former Chairman of the House Budget Committee, he is clearly qualified, 
and as I have indicated in the past, the President is entitled to great 
deference when it comes to executive branch nominations, especially 
those for positions which are so close to the President himself. In 
this respect, the President's nomination for Director of Office of 
Management and Budget should receive even greater deference than a 
Cabinet position. Of course, this deference decreases as the position 
is more distanced from the policymaking functions of the 
administration.
  Given the emphasis I have placed on the need to budget more 
responsibly, however, I want to make clear my strong disagreement with 
the administration's budget policies that have featured an unbroken 
record of massive deficits and increased debt. And while I hope this 
nominee represents a new period of better relations with Congress on 
budget matters, I do not vote for Congressman Nussle with the 
expectation that the President will finally see the light and adopt a 
more fiscally responsible budget.
  When his term of office is complete, this President will leave behind 
a fiscal mess so massive that it may take decades to clean up. I will 
continue my efforts during the remaining 15 months of this 
administration to make sure that it does not make matters even worse.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I come to the floor today to voice my 
opposition to Mr. Nussle's nomination to be head of the Office of 
Management and Budget. This nomination is another effort by President 
Bush to obstruct Congress from doing its job and to prevent us from 
passing fiscally responsible budget and appropriations bills.
  We need an OMB Director who can help the President understand that 
the fiscal problems our country faces are too important and too big for 
political gamesmanship. And we need an OMB Director who understands 
that past policies have failed and that the time for change is now. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Nussle is not the man for the job.
  As chairman of the House Budget Committee, he repeatedly failed in 
his biggest responsibility--to pass the annual budget resolution, which 
protects the integrity of the appropriations process and provides the 
blueprint for how we spend taxpayer dollars. Not passing a budget puts 
the healthy functioning of the Federal Government at risk. Before the 
nominee took control of the committee, Congress had only failed to pass 
the budget resolution once since 1974. When Mr. Nussle was chairman of 
that committee, it happened 3 out of his 6 years leading that 
committee.
  Given the President's refusal to cooperate so far during this year's 
appropriations process, we need an OMB Director who can build 
consensus. Mr. Nussle's inability to manage the budget resolution 
process shows that he clearly lacks this essential skill.
  Mr. Nussle also presided over a runup in debt unprecedented in our 
Nation's history. In 2001, when President Bush came to office and 
Congressman Nussle took over the Budget committee, there was a 
projected $5.6 trillion surplus. But today, huge tax cuts for the rich 
and reckless spending have left America $9 trillion in debt. To cover 
this debt, President Bush has had to borrow more than $1.1 trillion 
from foreigners, more than the previous 42 Presidents combined.
  This means that our grandchildren will have to pay part of their 
wages

[[Page 23371]]

and salaries for our tax cuts. This is not only bad policy, it is 
immoral.
  To this day, Nussle continues to support these and other failed Bush 
fiscal policies that, for the sake of the next generation of Americans, 
we need to reverse.
  The Bush administration has threatened to veto almost every one of 
our spending bills. These threats are stopping us from doing what the 
American people want us to do--from working together on the important 
issues facing our country and changing the priorities and tone of 
debate in Washington.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I pride myself on making 
sure taxpayer dollars are wisely spent on programs that make a 
difference. The spending bills we wrote in the spring are built on 
these values. They are fiscally responsible and support the programs 
that protect our country and improve the lives of American citizens.
  But because we reject President Bush's harmful cuts to housing, law 
enforcement, education and other critical programs, this administration 
and some Republicans accuse Democrats of wasteful spending. That is 
outrageous.
  Democrats passed a budget that reflected Americans' priorities: no 
new taxes, restored funding for critical domestic programs, balance the 
budget by 2012 and contained pay-go for fiscal discipline. We fought to 
increase funding for education, children's health care, veterans 
benefits, and crime reduction.
  President Bush says he wants to veto our appropriations bills because 
we increase funding for critical domestic programs. Democrats increased 
funding for the Department of Education when the President wanted to 
cut 44 education programs. Democrats increased funding for the National 
Institutes of Health when Bush wanted to cut it by more than $300 
million. The President wanted to cut first responder grants and we 
wanted to increase them. We proposed increasing domestic spending by 
just 1.4 percent over last year. That is lower than the growth rate of 
the economy and the growth rate in taxes collected.
  These appropriations bills fund every single Federal education, law 
enforcement, transportation, and housing activity in our country and 
they were passed out of the Appropriations Committee with bipartisan 
support. Despite this bipartisan support, the President refuses to 
negotiate with Congress and is threatening to veto our bills and bring 
this Nation into a state of gridlock.
  It is past time for the President to start facing the facts and to 
realize that the only way forward is by working together. Ours is the 
richest country in the history of the world and we have more than 
enough to provide decent public services on a balanced budget. My 
Democratic colleagues and I are eager to come to the table and hammer 
out our differences for the sake of the American people but progress 
takes political leadership and a willingness to compromise.
  November's election showed that Americans want Congress to change the 
direction and change the tone of politics. Democrats got the message 
and in May we passed a bipartisan budget that funded the programs 
America needs while balancing the federal checkbook over 5 years. Our 
budget provides the blueprint for extending middle-class tax cuts, 
expanding children's and veterans' health care, and investing in 
education. We also provided funds to protect our homeland and fully 
support our men and women serving in the Armed Forces.
  We've had 6 years of undisciplined and unprincipled budget leadership 
from the White House and congressional Republicans. Representative 
Nussle does not seem to understand that the time for a major change is 
now and he doesn't seem likely to push President Bush to come to the 
table. For this reason, I oppose his nomination and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Jim Nussle to be our Nation's next Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget. My support comes, however, with serious reservations about 
the administration's financial commitment to rebuilding the gulf coast 
in the wake of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
  While the President repeatedly speaks of his commitment to rebuilding 
the gulf coast, at every turn, this administration places financial 
roadblocks to the region's recovery. For months, the administration 
refused to waive the Stafford Act requirement that hurricane-ravaged 
States and localities match 10 percent of the funds that they receive. 
Similarly, the Office of Management and Budget has refused to allow the 
State of Louisiana to use the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to fund 
its Road Home Program. Finally, the administration has threatened to 
veto the Water Resources Development Act, which takes the first vital 
steps towards creating a comprehensive program for the restoration of 
the Louisiana coast.
  Notwithstanding the administration's claims of financial support, we 
still have a long way to go in rebuilding the gulf coast. The 
Government Accountability Office, for example, recently concluded that 
of the $110 million that the Federal Government has committed to 
reconstruction, only a small portion of the Federal assistance has been 
targeted toward long-term needs such as the restoration of the gulf 
coast's infrastructure. In fact, the Brookings Institution has 
concluded that only $35 billion of the $110 million has been dedicated 
to long-term rebuilding efforts. Only a small portion of this amount is 
dedicated to reconstructing the gulf coast's levees and floodwalls.
  The bottom line is that the rebuilding is nowhere near complete and 
neither is the need for Federal aid. The people of the gulf coast 
appreciate the generosity of the American people. We all know where 
we'd be without the Federal Government lending a hand to help bring 
back the gulf coast. That being said, the President promised in his 
speech at Jackson Square in New Orleans that the Federal Government 
would be there until the job is complete. While it is a reality that no 
one enjoys facing, the fact that the rebuilding of the gulf is only in 
its infancy--is reality nonetheless. More needs to be done and it is 
critical that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
recognize that fact.
  In conclusion, I will support the nomination of Jim Nussle but with 
the caveat that the administration must grapple seriously with the 
long-term financial needs of the gulf coast.
  I thank the Chair and ask that my entire statement appear in the 
Record.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I oppose the nomination of Jim Nussle to 
be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
  During his tenure as chairman of the House Budget Committee, he not 
only embraced but helped to enact the woefully misguided and disastrous 
budget policies of this administration, which have resulted in massive 
deficits, including the highest three on record. Those dangerous 
policies have resulted in the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars 
from the Social Security trust funds, and draconian cuts in domestic 
investments that have left the infrastructure of our Nation to 
deteriorate, and agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA, unprepared to protect the American people.
  When I met with Mr. Nussle in July, I also was taken aback by his 
lack of knowledge about funding the military operations in Iraq, 
suggesting that it is common and routine to fund such operations 
through supplemental appropriations bills. He asserted that the United 
States has always funded its wars through supplementals. This is simply 
not true, and certainly something that the nominee for the White House 
budget office ought to have known. Many times the Congress has passed 
supplemental war funding bills at the beginning of a conflict, but then 
budgeted for that war spending as part of the regular appropriations 
process. That is something that this administration has stubbornly 
declined to do, despite overwhelming votes in the Senate calling for 
regular budgeting for the Iraq war. Instead, the administration 
continues to ask the Congress to rubberstamp its emergency supplemental 
funding requests.

[[Page 23372]]

  I have repeatedly warned against this administration's budget and 
spending policies. I have watched the disastrous results that they have 
brought about. I am not about to endorse a continuation of that kind of 
record today. I am heartened by Mr. Nussle's pledge to work in a 
cooperative way with the Congress and the Appropriations Committees. 
However, I do not foresee any real change in policy in the offing, and 
so I must oppose this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa seeks recognition. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, might I ask the Senator from Maine if 
she might give 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa for a statement in 
support of the nominee?
  Ms. COLLINS. I will be happy to yield that time. I note Senator 
Grassley also is requesting time. Perhaps I can find out from Senator 
Grassley how much time he needs as well so we could accommodate both of 
the Senators from Iowa.
  Madam President, how much time is remaining of the time that I have 
been allotted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes remaining.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to 
Senator Harkin. I will yield the remainder of my time to Senator 
Grassley, but I hope we can only find an additional few minutes so he 
could complete his statement.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we will ask another Senator who controls 
time if we can get additional time for Senator Grassley. We will do 
that while Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley are speaking.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine for 
yielding me this time.
  In July, in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, I spoke strongly in favor of President 
Bush's nomination of former Congressman Jim Nussle to serve as the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
  In his testimony before the committee and in a subsequent appearance 
before the Senate Budget Committee, Congressman Nussle impressed all of 
us with his forthrightness and his obvious expertise on budget issues. 
This should come as no surprise. The fact is that Congressman Nussle is 
superbly qualified for the job of Budget Director. First elected to 
represent Iowa's First Congressional District in 1990, he served 
honorably for eight terms. He joined the House Budget Committee in 
January of 1995 and was elected chairman in January of 2001, a position 
he served in for the next 6 years.
  Congressman Nussle is a genuine expert and a recognized expert on the 
budget and a master of the budgeting process. I have known Jim Nussle 
and worked with him for more than 16 years. I can tell you that he is a 
skilled and savvy operator. He is a straight shooter whose word is his 
bond and who can be counted on to follow through with the commitments 
he makes. As chairman of the Budget Committee, he reached out to 
majority and minority members and he gave everyone a fair hearing.
  In addition, Congressman Nussle will bring to the job an impressive 
array of political skills. As Senators saw firsthand during his 
appearances before the two committees this summer, he is open and 
responsive. He is an excellent communicator, and he is a formidable 
advocate for the causes in which he believes.
  As members of different political parties, Congressman Nussle and I 
have often disagreed on principles and priorities. But in Jim Nussle, 
the President has chosen a person of exceptional intelligence, 
competence, and experience.
  As we enter the final month of the fiscal year, we face enormous 
challenges with regard to the budget. I have had and continue to have 
sharp disagreements with President Bush over his budget priorities, in 
particular his shortchanging of children's health insurance, education, 
and biomedical research. And, of course, I believe we need to work to 
eliminate abusive tax breaks enjoyed by multinational companies and the 
very wealthy, as was just outlined by the Senator from North Dakota a 
few moments ago. Now, we all understand that the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget is not the initiator but the implementer of 
the President's agenda. However, it is my hope that in Congressman 
Nussle, we will have a voice of moderation and corporation.
  Finally, I would add that those of us who represent rural America, 
rural areas, small towns and communities, could have no better advocate 
for rural America, for our farmers, our farm families, and those who 
live in small towns and communities than Congressman Jim Nussle. He has 
always been there fighting for their interests, and it is kind of good 
to have someone like that in the position of Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget.
  I intend to vote yes on Congressman Nussle's nomination. I urge all 
of my colleagues to do likewise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask that the Senator withhold.
  How much time does Senator Gregg have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Thirteen minutes. If the Senator would be willing to 
reserve 10 of his minutes and give the additional 3 minutes to the 
Senator from Iowa so the Senator from Iowa can have a total of 9 
minutes? At least that gets us close to the Senator's request.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am pleased the Senate is considering the nomination 
of Jim Nussle to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
  I thank Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins of the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for their quick action on 
the nomination, and I also thank Chairman Conrad and Ranking Member 
Gregg of the Budget Committee for helping to move this nomination along 
very quickly. Also, of course, I thank the majority leader, Senator 
Reid, for making time in the Senate's hectic schedule for the 
consideration of this most important nomination.
  I have known Jim Nussle for nearly 27 years. I first met him when, as 
a student at Luther College, he drove me around the State as I 
campaigned in my first run for the Senate. He was elected to the U.S. 
House in 1991 at the age of 30. Congressman Nussle quickly rose through 
the ranks as chairman of a committee, and he excelled in that very 
important leadership role as chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Congressman Nussle and I share a strong belief that we here in 
Washington hold a great responsibility to be wise stewards of the 
taxpayers' money. He took this responsibility very seriously and acted 
on it early in his congressional career. Few have worked as hard as 
Congressman Nussle to ferret out wasteful and unnecessary Federal 
spending. If confirmed for the OMB Director, I am certain he will 
continue to be one of the taxpayers' advocates there in that new 
position.
  When he was chairman of the House Budget Committee, Jim Nussle did 
not just focus on short-term goals; he looked down the road at long-
term challenges. As an example, in the Deficit Reduction Act, with 
Jim's leadership at the Budget Committee, Congress took an important 
first step in reforming our entitlement spending. This step saved 
taxpayers nearly $40 billion over a 5-year period of time.
  Jim Nussle also understands that the Federal budget process can and 
needs to be improved. He chaired a bipartisan task force in the late 
1990s and developed a bipartisan initiative termed the ``Comprehensive 
Budget Process Reform Act of 1998,'' and he did it in a bipartisan way 
with then-Congressman and fellow Senator Ben Cardin. In working with 
then-Congressman Cardin, he demonstrated his abilities to work across 
the aisle and develop bipartisan products.
  This respect for the other side continued during his time as Budget 
chairman. During the Senate Budget Committee's hearings to consider his 
nomination, House Budget Chairman

[[Page 23373]]

Spratt attested to the respectful manner in which Congressman Nussle 
handled the Budget Committee under his chairmanship. Chairman Spratt, 
then the ranking member, spoke to the fair and collegial treatment the 
minority received while Jim Nussle was its chairman and to Congressman 
Nussle's knowledge of the budget process.
  I believe it is Congressman Nussle's qualifications and respect from 
all sides that led to a unanimous vote in favor of his nomination by 
the Homeland Security Committee and by the 22-to-1 vote in the Budget 
Committee. Yet some have chosen to use Congressman Nussle's nomination 
to take issue with the President's fiscal and economic policies. So I 
would point out to my colleagues that while they portray the economy as 
nothing but doom and gloom, the facts suggest otherwise.
  Unemployment remains at historically low levels. Most recently, the 
unemployment rate stood at 4.6 percent. July was the 47th consecutive 
month with job gains, and over 8.3 million new jobs have been created 
during those 47 months. The fact is, the economy is resilient and 
growing. We have had 23 consecutive quarters of growth in the gross 
domestic product.
  Contrary to the arguments of some of my colleagues, the budget 
deficit has been coming down year by year. This year's deficit is 
estimated to be 1.5 percent of our gross domestic product, and that is 
lower than the 40-year average of 2.4 percent of GDP. The reduction in 
the deficit is largely due to the higher than anticipated revenues 
coming into the Federal Treasury, and this increase in Federal revenue 
has occurred since the bipartisan tax relief plans passed in 2001 and 
2003.
  While those on the other side may argue that we are undertaxed, I 
would like to point out that this year's receipts are projected at 18.8 
percent of gross domestic product. That is higher than the historic 
norm over a 30-year average of 18.3 percent. So while Congress and the 
President acted in a bipartisan way in response to the economic effects 
of the tech bubble burst and the attacks of September 11, 2001, we are 
still generating the necessary revenues to operate the Federal budget 
at historic levels.
  Where would our economy be today if Congress had not enacted a 
bipartisan economic stimulus tax package? Would our economy have 
weathered the crash of the NASDAQ in 2000 when it lost 50 percent of 
its value or the economic shock after the 9/11 attacks in 2001? Would 
we have come out of it with such resilience as we have without those 
tax bills having passed? Would we have such low unemployment, strong 
GDP growth, or the creation of those over 8 million jobs without that 
tax relief? Now, these are fair questions that the critics of the 
President's economic policies ought to consider.
  Regardless, we are here today to consider the nomination of 
Congressman Nussle to be Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget. However you feel about the President's economic policies, I 
think we should all agree that the President has the right to choose 
his Director for the Office of Management and Budget. Rather than delay 
and object to considerations of this nominee, I believe it makes more 
sense to confirm the President's highly qualified choice and get to the 
work of finishing the peoples' business.
  We have a serious challenge ahead of us. With only 1 of 12 annual 
appropriations bills having even been considered by the Senate, we find 
ourselves less than 4 weeks away from the end of the fiscal year. In 
order for this process to get underway in earnest, it is important that 
the President has his choice of Budget Director in place. Given 
Congressman Nussle's experience, knowledge, and commitment to public 
service, it is fitting that he has been nominated to be the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget.
  Jim Nussle is highly qualified. He knows the budget. He understands 
Congress, and he is a decent, honorable public servant. So I hope the 
Senate will see fit to confirm Jim Nussle to OMB Director.
  I think the people who gave me the additional time ought to have it 
back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend and colleague from Vermont for 
yielding me time. I will speak for a brief moment on this nomination 
and then talk a little bit about Iraq.
  First, I will oppose the nomination of Jim Nussle to OMB Director. 
Why? Because our country is in a new world and a new time and a new 
place. Our health care system, our education system, and our 
infrastructure are lagging, and those who put continued tax cuts for 
the very wealthy above rebuilding America are at the wrong time, in the 
wrong place. That is what Jim Nussle has done. I understand it is a 
heartfelt belief of his.
  We Democrats have adopted a more responsible position of pay-go. We 
Democrats believe, yes, we must restore our infrastructure, both 
physical and human, in America to stay great. And with an OMB Director 
who remains rigidly wedded to the policies of the past, tax cuts to the 
very wealthy above everything, above rebuilding our schools and 
restoring health care and getting our bridges and roads built--we are 
headed in the wrong direction. So I must vote against him and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.


                                  Iraq

  Now, I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing 
efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture, to cling to 
straws when the situation on the ground suggests just the opposite.
  I first thank my colleague, Jack Reed, who has done great work on 
MILCON, veterans affairs, which we have just considered, and for his 
work on Iraq.
  Some have argued that the surge in Iraq is working, but all you have 
to do is look at the facts to know that is not the case. The President 
went to Anbar Province, which at the moment he is touting as a measure 
of success, but we all know what has happened in Iraq. You push on one 
end of the balloon, and it pops out on another. Anbar may be a little 
better; other places are worse. And the fallacy of Anbar is just 
amazing. Are we placing our faith in the future in Iraq on a handful of 
warlords who at the moment dislike al-Qaida more than they dislike us? 
And they certainly dislike us. What kind of policy is that? What are 
the odds that 6 months from now, the fragile and perilous situation in 
Anbar will reverse itself and collapse? We heard about success in 
Baghdad, we heard about success in Fallujah, and we heard about success 
in this province and that province, and it vanishes. Success vanishes 
like the wind. Why? Because the fundamentals in Iraq stay the same. 
That is, that there is no central government, that the Shiites and the 
Sunnis and the Kurds dislike one another far more than they like any 
central government, and that dooms our policy in Iraq to fail. When the 
President began the surge he said it was to give the Government 
breathing room, to strengthen the present Government. We have more 
troops there, more military action, more deaths this summer, more than 
any other, and the Government is weaker. So why isn't it apparent to 
the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the 
stated goal of the surge is failing? Because the goal is not a military 
goal but, by the President's own words, it is to give the Government of 
Iraq greater strength, breathing room, as he put it. That Government, 
by just about every standard, is worse off than it was before.
  Again, Anbar Province? Because a few warlords, tribal leaders are now 
on our side for the moment, even though they are not loyal to us, they 
don't like us and they dislike the central government, that is why we 
should continue the present course in Iraq? It makes no sense.
  What happened to the great call for democracy in Iraq? Are the tribal 
leaders in Anbar Province our apostles of democracy? Of course not. I 
admit that is realpolitik. That is fine. But it is not going to solve 
the problem.
  If you look at the benchmarks, today the independent GAO report due 
to be delivered to Congress showed little

[[Page 23374]]

progress being made in meeting the 18 military and security benchmarks 
set out by the Congress. A draft report showed that only three of the 
benchmarks had been met. However, over the weekend, the Pentagon 
revised the draft GAO report and now, miraculously, an additional four 
benchmarks were ``partially met.'' Despite the apparent efforts by the 
Pentagon to edit this independent report, it will take much more than a 
red pen to correct the failures of the President's Iraq policy. So the 
surge by the President's own stated goal is failing. The Government is 
weaker. The fundamentals on the ground are the same. There is no 
loyalty to a central government.
  The temporary stasis in Anbar Province is not because of the surge 
but because the surge was unable to protect these tribal leaders from 
al-Qaida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The bottom line is very simple. We are worse off today 
in Iraq than we were 6 months ago. The position of America, democracy, 
stability continues to deteriorate. If there were ever a need for a 
change in course in Iraq, it is now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we have heard over the last few moments 
from some of our Republican friends, again, the assertion of how strong 
this economy is doing and how we have to continue going along this same 
path with an OMB Director who is supportive of these policies. Let me 
reiterate, I do not believe the economy is stronger when, over the last 
6 years, 5 million more Americans have become poor, slipped into 
poverty, including a million children. I do not believe this economy is 
strong when median income for working age families has declined by 
about $2,400 since the year 2000. I do not believe this economy is 
strong when the personal savings rate has been below zero for eight 
consecutive quarters. I do not believe this economy is strong when 8.6 
million Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush 
has been in office. I do not believe this economy is strong when 35 
million Americans struggled to put food on the table last year and 
hunger in America is growing. I do not believe this economy is strong 
when home foreclosures are now the highest on record, turning the 
American dream of home ownership into a nightmare.
  We need a new direction in economic policy, policies which protect 
the interests of ordinary Americans and not just the wealthy and the 
powerful. We need an OMB Director to tell this President the reality of 
economic life for tens of millions of our families rather than continue 
a mythology which essentially represents the interests of the people on 
top who, in fact, are doing very well. Maybe government should 
represent all rather than just the wealthy and the powerful.
  When I talked before about the budget priorities of President Bush, 
we should continue that discussion and talk about how he treats our 
veterans. The war in Iraq, something which I strongly opposed, has 
given us now over 27,000 soldiers who have been wounded, many of them 
seriously. Studies tell us that many of the soldiers returning home 
from Iraq are coming home with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. 
How did the President's budget, a budget which we turned around, how 
did his initial budget treat the veterans? His budget proposed cutting 
the VA by $3.4 billion over 5 years after adjusting for inflation. That 
does not say thank you to our veterans and their families and all they 
have gone through.
  We have a President who in his budget has said we don't have enough 
money to address the needs of the middle class, working families, 
senior citizens, children, and veterans. We don't have enough money to 
do that, to pay attention to the people who are hurting. But amazingly 
enough, President Bush has told us we do have enough money to provide 
$739 billion in tax breaks over the next decade to households with 
incomes exceeding $1 million per year. Under President Bush's proposal, 
the average tax break for this group of millionaires would total 
$162,000 by the year 2012. So if you are a millionaire or a 
billionaire, the good news is, we have enough money for you. But if you 
are a veteran coming home from Iraq with PTSD, if you are a mother 
trying to find quality childcare for your kids, if you are a worker 
trying to find health insurance, sorry. This country does not have 
enough money for you.
  Let me be very blunt. In my view, it is wrong to be giving huge tax 
breaks to the very wealthiest people, the people who need them the 
least, while cutting back on the needs of the middle class and working 
families. I should say that Mr. Nussle's record as chairman of the 
Budget Committee tells us clearly he supports these tax breaks for the 
very rich while, at the same time, he has been prepared over the years 
to cut programs for those who need them the most. That is wrong. That 
is why I will be voting against Mr. Nussle's confirmation.
  Included in President Bush's budget is the complete repeal of the 
estate tax which would take effect at the end of 2010. The complete 
repeal of the estate tax, we should be clear, because sometimes people 
have not been quite so clear about it, would benefit the wealthiest 
three-tenths of 1 percent of our population, the top three-tenths of 1 
percent, and 99.7 percent of the American people would not benefit, 
their families would not benefit by one nickel from the repeal of the 
estate tax. Obviously, if you are in the top three-tenths of 1 percent, 
you are already a millionaire or a billionaire, and you are already in 
a family which is doing very well and has been doing well in recent 
years. In other words, 99.7 percent of Americans would not receive one 
nickel. The wealthiest people, who are doing very well, would get all 
the benefits.
  According to the President's budget, this repeal of the estate tax 
will reduce receipts for the Treasury by more than $91 billion over the 
next 5 years and more than $442 billion over the next decade. But the 
long-term damage to our fiscal solvency is even worse. According to the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, repealing the estate tax would 
cost over $1 trillion from 2012 to 2021, all of which benefit goes to 
the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent. In other words, if the 
President's plan to permanently repeal the estate tax succeeds, the 
children and family members of the most privileged families in America 
will reap a massive tax break. Paris Hilton, you are in luck, if the 
President gets his way. You are going to do very well. But for other 
Americans, the deficit will go up, and the argument will be raised that 
we don't have enough money to take care of our kids, our seniors, and 
our veterans.
  What has Mr. Nussle's position been as chairman of the Budget 
Committee on repeal of the estate tax? He is there alongside the 
President. So we have every reason to believe he will be recommending 
to the President that we continue this extremely unfair and disastrous 
policy.
  When we talk about repealing the estate tax, which the President 
wants to do, which Mr. Nussle wants to do, which many of our Republican 
friends want to do, I think we should see who benefits in a more 
specific sense. Yes, it is the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent who 
will get all of the benefits, the people who need it the least. Let's 
look at one particular family who does have the best. Let's put this 
thing into perspective. The reality is the big winner, the people who 
need this money the most--not the kids, not our seniors, not low-income 
people, not our veterans, no, they get at the end of the line--the 
people who receive a significant amount of the benefits from repeal of 
the estate tax is the Walton family that owns Wal-Mart. In fact, 
today--and these things change; they go up and down--the estimated net 
worth of the Sam Walton family is about $83.2 billion. From where I 
come,

[[Page 23375]]

that is pretty good, $83.2 billion. You are a family that is doing 
fine. You will probably be able to pay the rent next month. If the 
estate tax is repealed for this one family, they will receive a benefit 
of $32.7 billion, one family, $32.7 billion.
  We do not have enough money, says the President, to increase health 
insurance for our children. Oh, he is going to repeal that $32 billion 
to take care of 3 million more kids? We cannot afford that, but we can 
afford to give $32 billion in tax breaks to a family worth $83 billion.
  Those priorities are wrong. In my view, they are immoral. We need an 
OMB Director who begins to explain to the American people this is not 
what America is about, who begins to explain to the American people we 
need a budget that reflects the needs and deals with the needs of 
millions of families, where people are working longer hours for lower 
wages, that deals with the problems of our senior citizens, deals with 
the problems of our crumbling infrastructure, deals with the problems 
of kids who cannot afford to go to college, deals with all of the 
problems our people face every single day. That is the kind of budget 
we need. That is the kind of OMB Director we need. What we do not need 
are policies which give obscene benefits to the very wealthiest people 
in this country.
  Let me simply say at this point that in fact what this debate is 
about is whether we are going to have an OMB Director who can advise 
the President about the reality facing our working families or will we 
continue the same failed policies?
  Having said that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a little bit what has 
been talked about at length in this debate. I think it has been a very 
helpful and good debate. It has not been about Congressman Nussle and 
his qualifications. That seems to be universally agreed upon. It has 
been about the issue of policy and how we approach fiscal policy in 
this country.
  The other side of the aisle, for whatever reason, seems to think 24 
quarters of economic growth, with the addition of 8.4 million new jobs 
over the last few years, a tax law which was put into place which has 
caused us to generate more receipts as a Federal Government than we 
ever received before over a 3-year period relative to growth and as a 
percent of gross national product, is something we should not have, 
that this is bad policy for some reason, that giving people jobs, 
creating economic activity, having a tax policy that is fair, is not 
good. Therefore, they are attacking Congressman Nussle for him being 
proposed to become OMB Director and for the fact he happens to ascribe 
to those approaches.
  Now, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I 
am not sure what they expect. Maybe they are sort of like Claude Rains 
in ``Casablanca,'' where he comes out of the room and says: I'm 
shocked--shocked--to find out that there's gambling going on in Rick's. 
What? Are they shocked to find out the President nominated a Director 
of OMB who agrees with him? I mean, really. Obviously, he is going to 
nominate a Director of OMB who agrees with him. For as much as I admire 
the Senator from Vermont, his philosophies, which he of his own accord 
has described as socialist--although he affiliates with the Democratic 
Party--are not necessarily the philosophies of the President. So I do 
not expect he is going to nominate somebody with the philosophy of the 
Senator from Vermont. Even France, quite honestly, has rejected the 
philosophy of the Senator from Vermont. So I do not think the President 
is going to subscribe to it.
  What is hard to accept, however, is this argument that for some 
reason the tax cut the President has put in place has been regressive, 
that it has been unfairly distributed.
  Let's go back to the record. The simple fact is today the top 20 
percent of earned income or taxable income under the income tax laws--
the top 20 percent of earners in those categories is paying 85.3 
percent of the burden of Federal taxes. That is more than was paid 
under the Clinton administration when those same people, the top 20 
percent, were paying 81 percent of the burden of Federal taxes.
  People of lower income or moderate income who do not pay income taxes 
basically--individuals do, but as a group they do not pay a net income 
tax--the bottom 40 percent of income earners in this country is 
actually getting more back from the Federal Government in the form of 
earned income tax credit and other benefits than they received under 
the Clinton years--almost twice as much back.
  So you have the highest income people in this country paying more 
than under the Clinton years, who are bearing a larger share of the 
burden, and you have the lower income people or the moderate income 
people getting more back from the Federal Government. That, ladies and 
gentlemen, is called progressivity. That is a tax law that is working.
  Why is it working? Why are the people with higher incomes paying more 
taxes? That is called human nature. It is called human nature. If you 
say to someone: ``I am going to take the next 90 cents of the $1 you 
earn, and take it to the Federal Government and the State Government 
and the local government''--I do not know that Vermont reaches 90 
percent. They are probably pretty close. That is why people come to New 
Hampshire to buy liquor and other goods; they are not subject to a 
sales tax. That is just a bit of PR for our State. But if you say that 
to a person, they are not going to go out and make the effort to earn 
that extra dollar, whether it is 90 percent, 70 percent, or 50 percent.
  Why? Because they do not want to pay the taxes. They do not want to 
work for the Government half the year. Actually, everybody is working 
for the Government half the year, but they don't want to work for it 
for two-thirds of the year.
  So if you put in place a tax law that is fair, where you say to a 
person: ``You go out and invest, you take a risk, you become an 
entrepreneur, and as a result you create jobs, and we are going to tax 
you fairly,'' then you get more economic activity that is taxable. As a 
result, you get more money to the Federal Government. That is what has 
happened over the last 3 years. We are now receiving more revenue than 
we have historically. In fact, we have had the largest increase in the 
history of our Government in the last 3 years as a percentage, and we 
are getting more in than what has been the historical norm. Usually, we 
have been getting, since World War II, about an 18.2-percent raise in 
revenues from the gross national product. Now we have gone up to 18.6 
percent and 18.7 percent, and those are big increases.
  Why are we getting those increases? Because people are willing to 
participate in the taxable economy. Because there is a fair tax rate 
that is in place today. What is the other side of the aisle suggesting? 
Let's raise those taxes. Let's raise those taxes way up so we can spend 
the money--not to put it to debt reduction, as the Senator from North 
Dakota talks about--so we can raise taxes on the American people to 
spend the money.
  Their budget suggests we increase taxes by somewhere between $400 
billion and $900 billion over 5 years. Their budget suggests we 
increase spending on the discretionary side by around $200 billion over 
the next 5 years. Their budget suggests we increase spending on the 
entitlement side by a number that is so astronomical I cannot even 
calculate it, but I think it is around $1 trillion. It is a classic 
tax-and-spend approach. Its purpose is not to make the economy 
stronger. Its purpose is not to reduce the debt. Its purpose is to

[[Page 23376]]

raise taxes, to spend the money on interest, which the other side of 
the aisle finds attractive.
  Well, that is reasonable if you do it in a way that is fair. But what 
they are suggesting is you raise taxes on working Americans, and 
specifically on seniors. Do you know who most benefits from the capital 
gains rate? Senior citizens. Do you know who most benefits from the 
dividends rate? Senior citizens. Logic tells you that; also statistics 
do. The fact is, when you are a senor citizen, you do not have earned 
income. You are probably not subject to the income tax rate for the 
most part, but you might have dividend income from one of the pension 
funds you invested in or that the company you worked for invested in. 
And you probably have capital gains income because you probably sold 
some asset such as your house to move into another lifestyle.
  So not only are they suggesting we raise taxes in a manner which will 
undermine what has been a clear economic benefit to this country, in 
that we have seen 24 months of economic expansion and we have added 8.4 
million jobs, we have seen revenues jump dramatically. In fact, the 
capital gains revenues are now $100 billion over what they were 
estimated to be--$100 billion. Why is that? Because people are willing 
to take risks. They are willing to take their capital out that was 
locked up and put it into more productive activity, the result of which 
is to create jobs.
  People are investing in starting new restaurants and starting new 
software companies, starting new small businesses all across this 
country because there is a reasonable tax rate on doing that. As a 
result, we are creating jobs. What is the result of that? We generate 
revenues to the Federal Government. The other side of the aisle does 
not like that, I guess. The only way they want to generate revenue to 
the Federal Government is to raise taxes on people. Well, it doesn't 
work very well, quite honestly. President Kennedy showed the best way 
to do it is the way we have done it. President Reagan showed us the 
best way to do it is the way we have done it. And now President Bush 
has shown it one more time.
  It is hard to accept this philosophy which continues to be paraded 
out by the other side of the aisle, which we, regrettably, in New 
Hampshire are hearing a great deal of--actually, we do not regret it. 
We love it. We love to have the folks come to New Hampshire who are 
running for President and listen to their positions. But as you listen 
to people, your head has to spin as to the number of new programs that 
are being proposed by the front runners of the Democratic Party. It is 
program after program after program. If you listen to one of their 
speeches--and I have listened to all the major candidates on their side 
of the aisle give speeches in New Hampshire over the last few weeks--it 
is a litany, more or less like a merry-go-round, of ideas of how to 
spend money, followed by ideas as to how to tax people.
  The list goes on and on, but right at the top of the list is raise 
the capital gains rate, raise the dividend rate, raise the taxes on 
earning Americans, raise the taxes on productive Americans, which will 
result in a reduction of job activity, a reduction of revenues to the 
Federal Government, and it will be an unfortunate decision to reverse 
some very good economic news we have had over the last few years.
  Mr. President, at this time I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we sort of agreed casually on an 
order that the Senator from Vermont will speak, then I will speak, and 
then the Senator from North Dakota will wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire talks 
about program after program. Yes, we want to take care of our veterans, 
we want to provide health insurance to our children, and we do not want 
to give tax breaks to billionaires.
  Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to my friend from California.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
  I have never seen the Senator from New Hampshire so emotional and so 
excited. You would think the record we have seen in terms of this 
economy has been stellar. It reminds me of the expressions: ``He doth 
protest too much'' and ``the best defense is a strong offense. Get 
excited and wave your hands.'' Let's talk about what has happened here. 
This President and the Republicans in this Senate are trying to claim 
the mantle of fiscal responsibility. In fact, they turned a $236 
billion surplus inherited from the Clinton administration into a $248 
billion deficit. They oversaw the three largest budget deficits in U.S. 
history, and they are responsible for a $3 trillion increase in the 
national debt. Now, let me say this: Who owns that debt? Foreign 
countries--China, Japan. I don't hear the Senator from New Hampshire 
bemoaning the fact that they can hold us hostage.
  We need a change here. We need fiscal responsibility. We need 
investments in things that help our children, education, for one, and 
help our families, health care, for two, and a way to make sure our 
veterans truly get what they need. Instead, the President gives us as 
head of the OMB Mr. Nussle, who is closely associated with all of these 
policies and failed as chairman of the Budget Committee three out of 
six times to get a budget and work with Democrats. This is an absolute 
outrage.
  Now, I voted for so many of the President's appointees. I didn't vote 
for Alberto Gonzales, but I did vote for most.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will not vote for a man who put a bag over his head in 
the House of Representatives. That, to me, shows complete hostility to 
this great democracy. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Vermont has 
1 minute.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me conclude by applauding Majority 
Leader Harry Reid, Chairman Kent Conrad, and Senators Schumer, Dorgan, 
and Boxer for publicly expressing their opposition to the Nussle 
nomination.
  The bottom line is today the economy is doing very well if you are in 
the top 1 percent, if you are a millionaire or a billionaire. But if 
you are in the middle class, if you are a working person, the 
likelihood is you work longer hours for lower wages.
  We need a change in economic policy. We need an OMB Director who can 
advise the President about the reality of the vast majority of the 
people, and not just the very wealthiest people in our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. Does the Senator from New Hampshire ask to speak for an 
additional 30 seconds?
  Mr. GREGG. I thought I had some time reserved. I don't. I ask 
unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. Without objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I simply wish to note we are about to vote 
on the nomination for the Director of OMB, who is a man of high 
integrity and high quality, and who has the expertise to do this job 
well. I think we should presume that the President should have the 
right to appoint the person of his choosing to this office which is so 
uniquely part of the White House to begin with.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me end where I began. This is not 
about a personality; this is about policy. The fiscal policy of this 
administration has

[[Page 23377]]

exploded the debt of our country at the worst possible time--right 
before the baby boom generation retires. Here is the record. It is 
undisputed. It is uncontradicted. It is a simple fact. The debt of this 
country under this policy--and Mr. Nussle is one of the architects of 
this policy--has skyrocketed from $5.8 trillion at the end of the 
President's first year to $8.9 trillion at the end of this year. So 
much of that debt is now held abroad. When this President came into 
office, there was $1 trillion of U.S. debt held by foreign interests. 
That has now reached over $2.1 trillion, a more than doubling of U.S. 
debt held abroad. That puts this country at risk.
  We saw during the last few weeks the Chinese Minister indicate they 
might start to diversify out of dollar-denominated securities. 
Economists said if they chose to do that, they would push the United 
States into recession. In many ways, our economic future is now less in 
our hands and more in the hands of the people who hold our debt.
  I ask my colleagues on the basis of policy to reject this nomination.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Jim Nussle, of Iowa, to be Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 311 Ex.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brownback
     Craig
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Obama
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________