Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask during the quorum call the time be equally charged.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, is the time running against both sides?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?

Mr. GREGG. And the treaty says we submit issues to the WTO, we debate them. We win sometimes; we lose sometimes. On this issue, the WTO ruled that because we specifically send this money out to specific corporations--and there is only one that got 39 percent. I don't care if there are 700 that maybe got a dollar, there is one that got 39 percent of the benefit--then you are violating the rules of the WTO, and then they assessed us with a fine and our companies now pay that fine and make our goods less competitive. So not only are our taxpayers losing out because of this language, but the companies that have to compete in the world are losing out. The attack of the Senator from North Dakota on the bill on that point doesn't hold water. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma such time as he needs.

Mr. GREGG. I understand that we would go to Senator Rockefeller next, but in an aside, I simply want to address one or two of the points made by the Senator from New York, who always makes excellent points and is a very constructive member of the HELP Committee. When I was chairman, I enjoyed working with her and I have enjoyed working with her ever since. In fact, as I recall, she actually voted for the language which was reported from the HELP Committee which essentially accomplished what it appears she is concerned about now, which was to take the corporate subsidy that lenders get today under the student loan program and reduce it. As I have discussed before and discussed with Senator Kennedy, and I think he appreciates this issue, and some of the other folks who brought this issue up, there is no student loan reduction in this bill. Student loans are expanded. We create a whole new program for low- income students who are interested in math and science and we expand the money going into Pell grants. Where there is a reduction in this bill is in the corporate subsidy area for lenders. If we do not pass this bill, as I said earlier, there would be a windfall to corporate lenders of about $7 billion. That is why I said my staff corrected me. They estimate the windfall to lenders would be closer to $18 billion if we do not pass this bill this year and that is a function of the fact that the lenders are getting an artificially high interest rate. We are taking that down. With the money we receive from that--and it comes out of the corporate lenders, not out of the students--we are taking part of this and we are putting it into helping more students, especially low-income students, be able to go to college. If a teacher teaches special needs kids under IDEA, they can have $17,500 of their loans forgiven under this bill--$17,500 will be forgiven if they go into teaching special needs students because we think that is important. If one is a low-income individual who has done well in high school in math and science and they decide when they go to college that they want to pursue math and science on top of their Pell grant, on top of their student loans, they are going to get a $4,000-a- year grant for the last 2 years they are in college, a big boost for low-income students who pursue math and science. That is where the money has been directed. I think it is the right priority. I suspect that is why the Senator from New York voted for the bill when it passed out of the committee. What is the order now? Do we go to Senator Talent and then Senator Rockefeller, or Senator Rockefeller and then Senator Talent?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the time, if the Chair will advise the majority and the minority?

Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding that we are now going to Senator Byrd, then Senator Ensign, and then going back to the other side.

Mr. GREGG. If Senator Rockefeller is ready, why not have the Senator proceed and then we will go to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized on Democratic time.

Mr. GREGG. My understanding is that Senator Specter asked to speak as in morning business; am I incorrect in that?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are going back and forth. And I think there was a tacit understanding Senator Salazar would be next.

Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I just want to note that the exchange, which was very informative, between the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Oklahoma was in relationship to the Defense bill, and we are on the deficit reduction bill. Those items which the Senator from Arizona raised--he certainly has a legitimate right to raise them--are not applicable to this bill but applicable to the Defense appropriations conference report. This bill actually reduces the deficit by $40 billion, which is a very positive event.

Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Missouri 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. I will object.

Mr. GREGG. There is an objection.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, if there is an orphan on the floor today, or in this city today, I would suggest it is the Senator from New York. As I made the point yesterday, if he wished to get to a vote on the PATRIOT Act it could have occurred. But the Senator from New York would not allow cloture to be invoked. And now the Senator from New York and the leadership of the Democratic Party are coming to the floor claiming that because they would not allow the PATRIOT Act to be voted on, they are prejudiced and that they should not be accused of killing the PATRIOT Act. Well, obviously they killed the PATRIOT Act when they did not allow it to be voted on. That is a situation such as you referred to, where the individual killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court claiming he was an orphan. So if the Senator does not wish to extend the act for a year, then I would say his statements are Pyrrhic.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from North Dakota has risen and spoken, obviously, with enthusiasm and energy about his position. But I think that there are a couple of points which need to be made. First of all, on this Byrd issue, the Byrd trade rule issue, let us talk about what that really is. Where did it come from to begin with? It came in the middle of the night. It was put in an appropriations bill a few years ago. Who does it benefit? It benefits a very few specific industries in this country that get the windfall from an unfair trade practice. In other words, what happens under this rule is that $3.2 billion is paid to a few specific industries. In fact, one specific company got 39 percent of the funds up until this year. Who would get it if it were not in place? The American taxpayer would get that money. That money would go to the Treasury. It is not about cutting that money out of the budget; it is about having that money flow to the Treasury so the American taxpayer has the right to that money so it can be used either to reduce the debt or it can be used for programmatic activity that is necessary, such as national defense, instead of having it be a special interest event which goes to benefit very few industries in this country and a very specific number of companies within those industries. Quite honestly, I would not be surprised if some of those companies did not have some sort of headquarters in this building right here that get that $3 billion. In addition to that, this $3.2 billion, because of the insistence of a couple of Members in this Senate, has been kept in, so it is still flowing to those specific companies. So the taxpayer is still not getting the benefit of that money that the taxpayer should get. Prospectively, the rule has been changed, as it should be changed. Why should it be changed? Well, the Senator from North Dakota sort of passed over this a little quickly. The WTO ruled against us. It said: You cannot give that money to specific industries and specific companies. It said: You cannot do that. Maybe the Senator from North Dakota does not want us to be a member of the WTO, but we are a member of the WTO. We use the WTO aggressively to try to defend our trade interests around the globe. They are the arbiter. They are the ones we go to when something goes wrong and our companies get maltreated. So it is a little hard to say to the WTO: We want to use you to enforce a dumping procedure against Japan, China or Singapore, but when you find that we have violated the World Trade Organization's laws because we are giving money specifically to one or two companies in this country in violation of those laws, well, you cannot do that. You cannot tell us how to do things. So what does the WTO do? The WTO now assesses fines against other American companies--I think it totals to something over $100 million annually--which American products, produced in this country, are now having to pay, which make those products less competitive, because we continue to violate the WTO and give this money, instead of to the taxpayers of America, instead of putting it in the Treasury where it should be, thus reducing the debt, to a couple of companies that have the influence to get it across this floor. I do not find a whole lot of persuasiveness in the argument of the Senator from North Dakota on this point, but he won. The $3.2 billion is going to flow out of the door to specific companies, in violation of WTO rules, will stay in place, and other American manufacturers will be prejudiced because they will be hit with a fine by the WTO, which is a legitimate fine. The second point the Senator makes is, he says, Oh, we are cutting the subsidies to students. I think he said $12 billion. That also is inaccurate. There is no reduction of subsidies to students. In fact, we expand the programs, the Pell grant program, and we create a new program for math and science. What we do is what we should do, and we need to do it before the end of the year, and that is we reduce the windfall that is coming to lenders because of the way the rules are presently set up. That is $12 billion. Again, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of those lender companies had clearinghouses down in the Cayman Islands that he is complaining about. But he is defending them now because he is saying we should not make that change. If, by the end of this year, we do not change the rules as to how we calculate the lender activity to students in this country, lenders will get I think it is a $7 billion windfall. It might be more, actually. It does not go to the students. It will not help the students. All it does is help a group of lenders because the law is structured in a way which basically benefits them. We tried to change it. We were not able to permanently change it last year, but we now do have the permanent change in this bill. And, by the way, it was bipartisan. That proposal, because it is so obviously fair and the right thing to do, was reported out of the HELP Committee unanimously. This alleged $12 billion event that the Senator from North Dakota has decided to highlight as a corporate subsidy to the disadvantage of students is just the opposite. We are cutting a corporate subsidy to advantage students. The only debate between myself and Senator Kennedy, who was actually supportive to the policy relative to the reduction of the subsidy to the lenders, is how the money that is raised from that subsidy should be spent. We believe it should go to debt reduction, and we believe it should go to the expansion of student loans. He wants more money to student loans. We want to have a balance and we have a balance. On both those policy points, the Senator from North Dakota, in my humble opinion, has misrepresented the character of the bill--$3.2 billion is flowing to special corporations for a special interest benefit under this bill. It should be going to the taxpayers. But the policy which energized that is at least being changed so at least prospectively that is not going to happen, and other companies in this country that are being fined by the WTO because of violations of the WTO standard will actually have that relief in the outyears. And the subsidies which, if we do not act before the end of this year, are flowing to corporate lenders are going to be moved over to students, to benefit students, or to deficit reduction. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. As long as the time comes off the bill on the Democratic side.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, 39 percent of this benefit went to 1 company, 39 percent; and $2 billion of the $3 billion that is going to go out of this is going to go to a small group of companies that deal in lumber. Those dollars belong to the American taxpayer. They should be in the Federal Government's Treasury. They should be used for deficit reduction. They should be used for initiatives here at the Federal level that are important. The WTO ruled against us, and if the Senator doesn't like the WTO and doesn't want to be part of the World Trade Organization--we are. It is called a treaty. We have to live by treaties. It is called the rule of law.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this point, I will yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the executive branch agencies have many programs to recognize performance and talent. In the legislative branch, we too often take personal effort and hard work for granted. Unfortunately, the Senate does not possess many ways to recognize excellence, and thank the people who make this institution function so well. Today, I would like to take a little time to mention something that is not debatable. I think this is simply stating something that all Members, on both sides of the aisle, know only too well. In the three years that Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin has been Director of the Congressional Budget Office, he has led with dedication and integrity. He has provided the Members of Congress with impartial analyses of a wide array of budgetary and economic issues. He has never hesitated to meet with Members and staff regarding any issue. Douglas has always approached his responsibilities with enthusiasm and a desire to make sure that the information CBO provides leads decisionmakers to create better public policy outcomes. Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the sixth Director of the Congressional Budget Office. He was appointed to that position on February 4, 2003; following an 18-month stint as chief economist for the President's Council of Economic Advisers. During his tenure, he has certainly made an impression on CBO; leaving behind a legacy that Congress will benefit from for years to come. He has strengthened and improved the transparency of CBO's analytical methods by convening an annual Director's Conference to bring in outside experts to assist the agency in tackling complex economic issues. He also has enhanced the publication production effort by publishing background papers that explain CBO's models and methods, working papers that discuss new analytical developments and improvements, and issue briefs that communicate analyses in a concise manner for those unable to commit the time to more indepth research. Dr. Holtz-Eakin has devoted a great amount of attention to improving the clarity of CBO's work to make it more accessible to policymakers, professional analysts, and the public. Under Doug's guidance, CBO extended its modeling and analytic capacity; most notably in the critical areas of dynamic analysis and long-term microsimulation. CBO also has begun to apply the tools of modern financial analysis to improve budgetary and economic cost measures. Prior to his appointment as CBO Director, Dr. Holtz-Eakin already had a remarkable career, distinguishing himself in academia and as a public servant. He is a trustee professor of economics at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, where he also served as chairman of the Department of Economics and as associate director of the Center for Policy Research. He held positions as editor of the National Tax Journal, associate editor of the Journal of Human Resources, and as a member of the editorial board for Public Budgeting & Finance, Economics and Politics, Journal of Sports Economics, Regional Science and Urban Economics, and Public Works Management and Policy. Earlier in his career, he held academic appointments at Columbia University and at Princeton University. Since 1985, he has served as a faculty research fellow and research associate for the National Bureau of Economic Research. He has been a consultant to the New Jersey State and Local Expenditure and Revenue Policy Commission, the State of Arizona Joint Select Committee on State Revenues and Expenditures, and the New York State Office for the Aging. He also has served as the Executive Director, Tax Study Commission, New York State Assembly. Dr. Holtz-Eakin's remarkable career in public service will not end with CBO. He will continue making positive contributions to public policy research as the next Paul A. Volcker fellow in international economics and as the director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. The council is a nonpartisan research organization that is national in scope and global in its reach. Doug's quick wit and sense of humor will be sorely missed in the Halls of the Capitol and on the fourth floor of the Ford House Office Building. We wish him good luck in his new endeavors and are grateful for his contributions and work on our behalf. He leaves behind a first- rate professional staff with high morale, testimony to his excellence in leadership. We wish him well.