Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. If we had been allowed to go forward without cloture, isn't it true that the PATRIOT Act would have been on the floor, if the Democratic membership had voted for cloture?

Mr. GREGG. But wouldn't we be able to complete the business of the PATRIOT Act if cloture had been invoked?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I renew my request.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, December 20. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, the Senate then resume consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 1932, the omnibus deficit reduction bill, with 8 hours of debate equally divided remaining.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of the deficit reduction bill. Today we filed cloture on the Defense appropriations conference report and the Defense authorization conference report. Senators should expect a vote on the DOD appropriations cloture motion very early in the day on Wednesday. Votes can be expected on Tuesday and for the rest of the week as we finish the deficit reduction conference report, the Defense appropriations conference report, the Defense authorization conference report, the Labor-HHS conference report, and any other necessary business before we finish for the holidays.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I submit for the Record a list of material in the conference agreement on S. 1932 considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of section 313. The inclusion or exclusion of material on the following list does not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate. To the best of my knowledge, S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, contains no material considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 16, 2005, at 10:30 a.m., in closed session to receive a classified briefing regarding future naval force structure requirements.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order now? Are we in morning business for 15 minutes to the minority and 15 minutes to the majority?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, therefore, ask that at the end of the minority's time I be recognized for 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes of the period that the majority has.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 15 minutes which was to go to the majority for morning business be expanded a little bit and that 7 minutes be yielded to the Senator from Florida, then 5 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, and then 7 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is an irony today as we look at Iraq. As democracy is flourishing, the Democratic Party in the United States has tried to contract the democratic process by attempting to mute the New Hampshire primary. The New Hampshire primary is sort of the last best hope for the dream that anybody can become President in this country. It is the last opportunity in this country for a person who is underfunded and who has not been chosen by the Washington talking heads as a potential candidate of purpose to have the opportunity to go somewhere and actually make an impact. Underfunded, nonrecognized candidates who have legitimacy can succeed in New Hampshire and, therefore, interject themselves into the opportunity to become President. And it has happened time and again. The argument that New Hampshire is not representative is belied by the facts. Again and again, New Hampshire has reflected an opportunity for people to come to New Hampshire, participate in the process, make a name for themselves, and move forward in the process. Henry Cabot Lodge upset Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater there. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern upset the candidates who were perceived to be the sure-fire winners of their nomination, in fact, in one case, a sitting President. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton not only came to New Hampshire and made a name for themselves as people not recognized nationally but moved on to become President of the United States. Even Ronald Reagan, arguably, might not have become President of the United States had he not had the opportunity to come to New Hampshire and participate in the national debate where he said: I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green. More importantly, New Hampshire gives the people of this country the only opportunity they have to test candidates for President one on one. Without any script, without any prescreening, Presidential candidates have to come to New Hampshire and go into living rooms, they have to go into VFW halls, they have to go to Rotary clubs, and they have to go to union halls. They have to answer questions from everyday American citizens, and those questions are tough. Regrettably, time and again, candidates have not lived up to that test. So what we have today in the Democratic Party is an attempt by the kingmakers of that party to try to eliminate the threat of having the American people actually meet their candidates and be tested by those questions as they try to mute the New Hampshire primary process. This was said extraordinarily well in an article ironically written by a professor in England who is a specialist on the American political process. He looks at New Hampshire as the last best hope to maintain a populist approach to how we pick our Presidents in this country. Rather than having to have lots of money to pay for campaigns in big States or large groups of primary States or have a national name recognition that comes through having cozied up to the national press, a candidate can come to New Hampshire with very little money, without national name recognition, but with ideas, with purpose, with fire in their belly, and they can succeed in putting themselves and injecting themselves into the Presidential process. It would be a huge detriment to a fundamental element of the American dream, which is that if you have purpose, if you have substance, and if you have a track record of success and have been a producer in our Nation, you can continue that course and pursue the Presidency. It will undermine fundamentally the capacity of the American people to participate in the picking of a President if they don't have one place in this country where people who want to be President have to actually answer questions from everyday Americans. I certainly hope the Democratic Party will relent in its efforts to try to crush this one element of democracy which is so critical to our entire democratic process. I ask unanimous consent that the article written by Roddy Keenan, a professor of American studies in England, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let's remember what this amendment does in the context of the LIHEAP issue. This amendment will add $2.9 billion to the national debt and pass that debt on to our children in order to pay for energy costs which are being incurred today. The correct way to do this is the way we proposed in the Senate, as Republicans, which is to pay for it. That is what we will do in the conference. There is already $1 billion additional money for LIHEAP in the conference, and it will probably go up. The difference between those dollars and what is being proposed in this amendment is we actually pay for it. It is inappropriate to go to this number, which is a 130-percent increase in the LIHEAP program, when spending on oil is estimated to go up by 28 to 30 percent or maybe even 40 percent. Increasing the program by 130 percent when the oil costs are going up 30 to 40 percent is inconsistent on its face. It is especially inconsistent when one is taking that bill and giving it to one's children and their children's children so they end up paying for today's oil costs rather than their oil costs 2 or 3 years from today or two or three generations.

Mr. GREGG. We yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. The point of the request is to allow the yeas and nays on each item and that they be voted on seriatim.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the first vote, the subsequent votes be 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this proposal is a motion to instruct which has no binding effect and, thus, I assume Members are just going to vote the way they feel like voting. I will point out this: No. 1, the effect of this motion, if it had a binding effect, would be to take $3 billion away from the Federal Treasury and give it to specific companies in violation of a WTO ruling. It may have made sense at one time, but since the WTO ruling, it makes no sense. Because of that ruling, other companies are now being penalized inappropriately because we continue to assess this fine. No. 2, it is very hard for me to understand why, in a bill that is supposed to be reducing the deficit, we would want to increase the deficit by passing this type of instruction. Therefore, I oppose the motion to instruct. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays en bloc.

Mr. GREGG. The motion of the Senator from Wisconsin is not binding so I am sure they will vote as they please. It is well-intentioned and I agree with the concept. However, there are issues within the child support questions which should be subject to conference and which, if you read the motion literally and which if it had any binding effect, would undermine our capacity to have flexibility in conference. Specifically, for example, under the law today, you can use Federal money and make the State match, so what is happening is States are taking Federal money, and instead of using their State dollars to match, they are using Federal money to get more Federal money. That makes no sense at all. The House has corrected this program. This language would undermine that. I hope we do not support the motion to instruct. The conference will do a good job on this. It does not need this instruction.

Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG. Is that on the Kohl proposal?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order?