Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly. Later on, we are going to have a vote on the amendment offered by Senator Biden for a billion-dollar expansion of the COPS Program. That proposal is put in the context of Katrina and the effects of Katrina on the Gulf States. I have come to the Chamber a number of times in the last days, talking about how we put forward an orderly process in addressing the issue of trying to restore and rehabilitate and help the people who have been impacted by Katrina. The leader, much to his credit, has begun and initiated that process, using the strength of the authorizing committees that have jurisdiction. What I do not think we want to do is end up with a haphazard, rifleshot ``I have a good idea; let's come to the floor and offer an amendment'' approach to this because we are talking literally of tens, potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. We have already spent $60 billion and aggressively stepped forward as a Congress to do that. It was appropriate, and the leader again needs to be congratulated for his initiative when he moved $10 billion when we were essentially on break as a Senate and then got up the additional $50 billion last week. But as we move down the road, we need to put coherence and thoughtfulness into the money we are spending so the American people know those dollars are going to the people who need them and that they are going to help a region that has been dramatically impacted in a way that is effective so the American people can feel their tax dollars are being used aggressively to support these folks who have been so overwhelmed by this catastrophe and that their tax dollars are not being wasted or misdirected or put into another program or some program that just happens to be a project of interest to a Member of the Congress but is not necessarily an immediate issue relative to Katrina. Regrettably, the proposal by Senator Biden falls into that second category. It is an idea which the Senator has come to the floor with many times. In fact, every time this appropriations bill comes to the floor, the Senator from Delaware proposes an expansion of the COPS Program. I had the good fortune to chair the subcommittee for many years. I dealt with the Senator on this issue for many years. For many years, he made the same proposal, and there was no Katrina, there was no disaster, but the proposal was brought forward. Once again, the proposal is being brought forward to continue a program, the COPS Program. When President Clinton set it up, he said: We are going to have a COPS Program. We are going to put 100,000 cops on the street, and then the program is going to end. That is exactly what he said when he set it up. I was here then, too. We set it up and we funded it, myself and Senator Hollings at the time--Senator Hollings was chairman; I was chairman. He was chairman and I was chairman. We funded it until we got to 100,000--in fact, until we got to 110,000 police officers on the street. Then we said: All right, we have met the goals of this program. Let's, in a unique act, at least a unique act for the Federal Government, agree we have done what we said we would do and stop the program, phase it out. We have come close to doing that. Now we have a program focusing on putting police officers in school systems that need assistance. That is what is left of the COPS Program to the extent it is initiated. But to restart this program and say we need to put another $1 billion into it in the name of Katrina is simply not the best way to legislate. It is arbitrary, probably haphazard. Who knows whether that will be a decision that is tied into what the final needs are of the region. Yes, there will be needs, obviously, for assistance to law enforcement in that region, but the original $60 billion put in there--plus, a lot of that is clearly going to flow to first responders--police, fire, medical--because that is what FEMA does. So to suddenly throw this out--this is an idea we have to throw into the Katrina mix--is not a good way to legislate. It is especially not a good way to legislate in the context of what we know is going to be a huge effort by us as a Congress to address Katrina and where we know under the leadership of Senator Frist we are developing a process where the authorizing committees take a look at what should be done and could be done and they put forward those ideas in an orderly way and prompt way, that should be enforced, and then we can get relief out to these people who have been impacted so dramatically. But it isn't just some idea of some Senator who happens to have a project which he has always supported and which he feels is a good project. At some point, as chairman of the Budget Committee or maybe some other Senator as a member of the Appropriations Committee, a point of order will lie against this amendment because it is outside the budget and it is outside the appropriations bill. It should not be brought forward in this manner. What we need to do in addressing the issue of what police needs are in that region and law enforcement needs are in that region is do it in the context of an overall solution, which is moving through this Senate rather rapidly--already $60 billion in the pipeline--but which is done in concert with the authorizing committee, in concert with the leadership, and in concert, obviously, with the administration. At the correct time, I think we will have some more discussion on this bill. I wanted to lay down at least a few guidelines here because if we continue on this course, we are going to be waking up 2 or 3 months from now and we will have probably 10, 15, 20, 30, or 40 new programs or programs which have been expanded with no orderly, constructive, thoughtful process behind them other than the fact that somebody had a good idea and came to the floor and said: Let's spend money on that. That isn't going to help people in that region. That will not make sense to them. What will make sense to them will be to get money to them through an orderly manner, with effective leadership. That is being done--granted, not as quickly as it should have been, but it is being done now. We should continue the process of making sure we set priorities and do this in a manner which allows for the money to go where it can be most effectively used, where the American taxpayers know their dollars are being used to help the people who have been impacted by this hurricane and not simply assist in setting up a program which some Senator feels is a nice idea or a good idea or wants to continue. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I ask if the Senator would allow me to propound a unanimous consent request so that I might speak at the conclusion of the speakers she has on her side.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. GREGG. Assuming the speakers on the other side have completed their statements.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed at 5:30 to proceed for 10 minutes in morning business and that I be recognized at that time.

Mr. GREGG. I amend my request so that I be recognized at 5:35 for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak a little bit about the schedule of the reconciliation bill which this Congress was supposed to actually take up this week. As we all know, reconciliation is one of the key procedures by which the Congress addresses spending, specifically spending in mandatory programs and tax policy. In the budget which we passed about 5 months ago, we included reconciliation instructions which essentially say to committees within the Senate and within the House that they are to change the entitlement programs they have jurisdiction over in order to slow the rate of growth of a number of those programs or in order to generate revenues from those programs which might not otherwise be coming in in order to reduce the size of the deficit and in order to make the Government more affordable. This reconciliation proposal which came forward requested approximately $34 billion in savings on the entitlement side, $70 billion in tax policy changes. It was to be executed on or preceded with this week with a reconciliation bill on the spending side of the ledger. In consultation with the leadership, who obviously makes the final decisions, and with the House, we have decided to move the date of reconciliation so the Budget Committee will report a reconciliation bill on October 26. This will essentially allow committees, especially the authorizing committees, which are now heavily engaged in the issue of trying to address the catastrophe brought on by Katrina, the opportunity to have time to order their reconciliation changes so they can bring forward effective bills which will accomplish the instructions as proposed. Some have asked, why go forward with reconciliation at all in light of the Katrina situation? I think it is important to recognize what reconciliation is in relationship to a disaster, a catastrophe of the size of Katrina. Obviously, the impact on the Gulf States has been enormous and we have to do whatever we can to help the people of the Gulf States rebuild and reestablish their lives in some semblance of order and give them some opportunity for hope. And we are doing that as a Congress. The administration is trying to do that and obviously the States and local governments are trying to pursue that activity. We will get past the Katrina problem. The people of the Gulf States are energetic, enthusiastic, and productive people, as are all Americans, and America has come to their aid as a nation, which we should. Obviously it is going to take time, but this is a one-time event--hopefully never will happen again, and has never happened before--of this magnitude, and we should be able as a nation to manage and correct the situation and give relief to the people of that region and do the reconstruction that is necessary. That is a one-time spending event. What the reconciliation instructions address are the long-term implications especially of entitlement spending. We know that over the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years we are looking at massive increases in spending on mandatory programs, especially the health programs of the Federal Government, primarily because of the aging of the baby boom generation. As a nation, we need to set policies in place today which will allow us to be able to afford the costs which this huge generation is going to incur in order to maintain its health and also its retirement. Reconciliation is a very small step down that road of trying to improve the policy so we can better deliver services to seniors who get Medicaid and other people who get Medicaid--obviously children--and at the same time make it affordable. The reconciliation instructions cover 5 years. In fact, the Medicaid instruction, which has been the most contentious, anticipates no savings in the next year. So clearly it has no impact on the Katrina event, most of which money for that restoration will occur within the next year. Over the next 5 years, what we proposed is slowing the rate of growth of Medicaid under the reconciliation instructions from 41 percent back to 40 percent. I had hoped we would go from 41 percent to 39 percent. I thought 39 percent was a pretty good rate of growth, but that was not acceptable so we are going to a 40-percent rate of growth over the next 5 years, on a $1.1 trillion spending program. That is what Medicaid will be over the next 5 years. We are suggesting that we will save $10 billion--$34 billion over the whole reconciliation instruction--on a $1.1 trillion spending program over 5 years, with none of it occurring next year. How can we do that? We can actually do it by delivering more services to more people. If we give Governors greater flexibility with their Medicaid funds, Governors have told us with more flexibility they can cover more people and do it at lower cost. That is called good management. It does not take a lot of good management to shave 1 percent off the rate of growth, which will be around 40 percent. So it is a very doable event, and we need to proceed with it. There are other committees that have received reconciliation instructions that actually want those instructions, that want to be able to proceed forward because they see opportunities to improve Government and to generate a better return for taxpayers. One, of course, is the Commerce Committee. Another is the HELP Committee which has reported out an incredibly strong higher education bill where they are basically going to expand rather significantly the dollars available to people who go to college through Pell programs and other programs, under the leadership of Chairman Enzi. That bill has been reported out, has saved about $7 billion, but has also generated about $6.5 billion which will go back into student loans. It has done it without impacting student loans but actually expanded student loans by taking action in the area of lenders accounts. Chairman Enzi deserves lot of credit for it and we should proceed with that. Chairman Enzi also reported out a bill, along with the Finance Committee, to address the pension reform issue. We need to address pension reform. We are not going to be able to do it unless we do it in reconciliation. We know we have major bankruptcies coming at us. Regrettably some of them are in the airline industry, maybe even this week. There are rumors about that. We know when people go into bankruptcy, their pension funds go into the PBGC. We know the PBGC has somewhere between a $30 billion and $50 billion projected unfunded liability or deficit. If we are going to be able to maintain those accounts so that people who have been planning all their life to receive pensions, if they are in a company that goes bankrupt, still receive some percentage of their pensions rather than get completely wiped out, we have to have a solvent PBGC. So Chairman Enzi and Chairman Grassley have both reported out bills to try to accomplish that and they are using reconciliation to proceed in that direction, and that is very possible. So we need the reconciliation bill to put in place policies which do not address the immediate problem of today, which is obviously the Katrina issue, or the problem even of next year or the year after. These policies under reconciliation will address 5 years, 10 years, 15 years down the road and address them in a positive way. They are small steps, but they are important steps, and that is why we need to go forward with reconciliation. That is why we have set this date and moved it a month but only a month. Katrina Relief Effort On another issue, and that is the issue of Katrina and how we are funding Katrina and the relief effort, we have now passed two supplementals totaling about $61 billion. We know we are going to get another supplemental probably within 3 or 4 weeks for another $50 billion. We also know that moving through the Congress is a whole series of initiatives relative to trying to give relief to the people in the Gulf States, which is the goal of all of us. We recognize that things such as tax packages, such as WERDA, such as the COPS program, we have on this bill--in fact, I think there is an amendment for the COPS program of $1 billion. There is an amendment dealing with Medicaid which will cost $4 billion to $6 billion. There are flood insurance issues. The simple fact is that the cost of this disaster, catastrophe, is going to be huge. The problem we have, as I see it right now--and we are willing to pay that price, by the way. I am perfectly willing to pay whatever is the appropriate price to make sure we give these people an opportunity to rebuild and restore their region in a logical manner. I have suggested that we set up a commission with a single leader along the lines of the Hoover activities in the post-1927 flood where there would be a focal point where all the Federal programs would come together and the money would be distributed in an orderly and planned manner working with the States and the local region. Then we can set up such an authority and put a person on the ground who has a national reputation and knows what he or she is doing and can manage this in a way that is orderly and has a reasonable audit function and reasonable management function so we make sure we get value for the dollars so they are not wasted. We have seen some proposals that would not work and would have wasted money already. What we are not seeing is that sort of cooperation in the Senate or Congress. We have ideas come from all different sides. We have ideas coming from every committee--we have creative people on every committee--and we have ideas coming from the administration, but there does not appear to be any focal point for management of these ideas so we are prioritizing what we need, how we need it, and where it should come from and where it should go. We have ideas coming out of one committee that are for flood insurance, or amendments on the floor that already represent $4 billion to $10 billion of new spending, or we have ideas coming out of the tax committees or ideas coming out of the appropriating committees. Since everybody wants to respond and respond effectively, there ought to be a management process in the Congress--and in the White House, by the way--that says this is what we prioritize as needed. This is what we want the Congress to move on quickly. Let's take a hard look at what will work and what will not work. I am sorry we have not seen that yet. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I have been extremely concerned about this because I think we are going to wake up 6 months from now or 3 months from now and realize that a haphazard approach has not been effective either in resolving the problems in the gulf coast or in managing the taxpayers' money effectively. I am hopeful we will see a little more order in this process. I implore our leadership to give us such order. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we will sometime later today be getting a supplemental request in the Senate to continue to fund the needs of the relief effort in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, which will be approximately $50 billion on top of the $10 billion that has already been spent. Obviously, it is essential that we get these dollars down there and put them to use aggressively in order to try to help the people who are in such dire straits, and to try to begin to bring some order and some relief to those who have suffered so much. As we proceed in this effort, we should err on the side of making sure that we get the dollars there quickly in order to support these individuals who are in such dire straits, and to try to assist this part of the country that has been hit by this catastrophic event. But in the process, I think it is important that we have some fiscal oversight that allows us to feel comfortable that the dollars that are being spent are going effectively, quickly, and aggressively to relief efforts which are legitimate and appropriate. Thus, I congratulate the House of Representatives for putting in the supplemental and identifying within the supplemental $15 million which will be assigned to the Inspector General's Office to start to put in place the auditing process and the oversight process on how the money is being spent, which I believe is critical. We have seen some issues which obviously, if they are pursued logically, make sense. But if they are pursued in a way that is not logical, they are going to cost us a lot of money and probably not get us a lot of relief. For example, there was a report in my State paper which said that all the dealerships who sell Winnebagos in New Hampshire have been contacted and told to get ready to transfer their entire inventory over to the Federal Government because they are going to ship it all out. Maybe that is what we will end up doing, but we hope before we buy up all the Winnebagos in America and send them to the gulf coast, we would be thinking about the cost and how we are going to approach that and whether that is the best way to proceed. There are a lot of ideas floating out there. I think it is important we have the structure in place that effectively monitors cost and how the money is being spent. So I congratulate the House. In addition, I think the President's decision, along with the Vice President, to have the Vice President physically going there and being on the ground in that region is a very positive step in our efforts to get order in the process of delivering relief. Anybody who knows the Vice President--and I have had the good fortune to serve with him in the House and fortunate to serve with him here while he has been Vice President--will note that he is a no-nonsense individual. He looks at an issue, decides how to get the best results for resolving the problem, and moves forward. He did that as Defense Secretary. He has done it, obviously, as Vice President. He will bring immediate coherence, intelligence, and aggressive action in solving the problem and will move forward with the complexities of this reconstruction and relief effort. I think it is an excellent decision to have the Vice President step into the middle of this effort and basically try to calm the waters, but more importantly execute efficiently what is going on in the area of the Federal relief effort. However, it does lead to the point I made earlier-- and which I want to stress once again--which is that this is not an overnight, 2- or 3-month exercise. We all realize that rebuilding this region is going to take a significant amount of time and a tremendous amount of resources and a lot of thought and an intelligent process. We need to set up, I believe as we move forward--obviously, not within the next few days but certainly within the next month--some type of structured commission along the lines I would suggest as was done after the horrific floods of 1926 when Herbert Hoover led the effort, where you basically have a central focal point with an individual of great ability and national recognition leading the effort, and basically manage the Federal dollars as they come in from all the various Federal agencies that will be impacted, and make sure those Federal dollars are effectively, efficiently, and quickly brought to bear on the problems in concert with the State and local governments. I believe that is going to take a separate type of entity to be created. I think we should be thinking about how to structure that entity. I would certainly be looking to people such as Senator Cochran, Senator Lott, Senator Shelby, Senator Sessions, and the Senators from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Vitter, for ideas about how we should set that up. We should be starting the process. I wanted to come to the floor and say, as we move forward on this supplemental--obviously, it is totally outside of the budget. It is an emergency, and that is the way it should be done, but it is $50 billion--it is important that we retain this language--and I guess we will try to move this supplemental through the Senate without amendment--retain this language which makes sure that the Inspector General has the resources the office needs in order to effectively monitor how these funds are managed; to make sure we are getting the best return in the most prompt way for these tax dollars which are in such dire need down there in order to pursue the reconstruction and relief effort. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

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

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I rise today basically to speak about another issue, and that is a letter which I have received as chairman of the Budget Committee and which was sent to the majority leader, the Speaker of the House, and the chairman of the Budget Committee on the House side by the leadership of the Democratic membership of the Senate and the House--Congresswoman Pelosi; John Spratt, who is ranking member on the House Budget Committee on the Democratic side; Senator Reid, who, of course, is the Democratic leader; and Kent Conrad, who is the ranking Democratic member of the Budget Committee. The letter asks that we indefinitely postpone reconciliation, reconciliation being the mechanism by which we address the entitlement spending and tax policy here at the Federal level. It is an outgrowth, of course, of the budget process. Now, the letter itself, if I can look at it, although I can hardly see it--I wish they would send these letters in larger fonts so those of us getting older would not have to take out our glasses to read them. But, in any event, the letter itself is structured in a way to assert a number of items, boldly assert items which essentially are inaccurate. In fact, the boldness of these inaccuracies is such that it would be humorous if they were not going to, I am sure, become part of the nomenclature of the left in the country and, indeed, be carried forth by the echo chambers, such as National Public Radio, which speaks for the left. But their language says this: Now is not the time to cut services for our most vulnerable, cut taxes for our most fortunate, and add $35 billion to the deficit. That is the basic theme of the letter. If allowed to go forward, this bill-- They are talking about the reconciliation bill-- would likely cut programs that many victims of Hurricane Katrina will be relying on, including Medicaid, food stamps, and student loans. Those two statements are, as I said, boldly inaccurate and reflect a failure to accept history and a failure to look at the specifics of the reconciliation bill as it passed the Senate. Now that does not surprise me. I have to admit, and the folks who signed this letter readily admit, they did not vote for the budget when it first passed 8 months ago or 7 months ago, however long ago, 6 months ago. When it first passed, these four individuals and their caucuses strongly opposed putting in place here in the Congress a budget that had fiscal discipline, and they voted against it. So it should not come as a surprise and this letter should not come as a surprise that they are still against it and they still want to indefinitely postpone the key mechanisms which will make this budget effective. But what is a little surprising is that they would assert such inaccuracies in their letter. Let's begin with the tax inaccuracy. They must be ignoring or they must not just look at history. They must not look at the history of the Kennedy tax cuts and the Reagan tax cuts, and most recently the George W. Bush tax cuts because one thing we proved beyond any reasonable doubt is that when you significantly cut taxes on the productive side of the American economy, you create economic activity, and as a result, you create jobs and you give people work and you create revenues for the Federal Government. The numbers are incontrovertible. In the last 3 years, revenues have been jumping dramatically relative to the base we hit as a bottom as a result of the recession we experienced as a result of the bubble bursting, the Internet bubble of the 1990s, and the effects of 9/11. In fact, 2 years ago revenues jumped by 9 percent. This year, revenues are literally going to jump by more than that. The revenue projections for the next few years are projected to increase by 7 percent, 6 percent, 7 percent. And the deficit has dropped by over $150 billion from the original estimates purely as a result of economic activity that has been stimulated in large part because we have reduced the tax burden on the productive side of the ledger and created an incentive for people to go out and invest. As a result, there is an incentive for people to create jobs. We had some of the best job creation in the history of this country over the last 2 years. As a result, people are paying taxes and revenues are going up. It is totally ignored and misrepresented in this letter. More specifically, and I think the thing that I find most unreasonable about the terms of this letter--or, as I say, most boldly inaccurate--is its representation that the reconciliation instructions, as they relate to the mandatory accounts, will somehow affect programs that benefit people relative to the problems which we have in the South today as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Nothing could be further from the truth, be more inaccurate, or be more of an attempt to use the trauma and tragedy of Katrina to assert a political agenda here in the Congress of the United States, which they have been trying to assert, as I said, since they voted against that budget 6 months ago. The two have no substantive relationship, but there is an attempt now to use the political arena to try to link them up. The fact is that the reconciliation instructions in this bill will in no way reduce student loans. In fact, the committee which has jurisdiction over this issue, under the extraordinarily able leadership of Senator Enzi, is proposing a bill which will expand rather aggressively student loans, while saving money for the Federal taxpayer by addressing excesses in the lending community. In fact, the proposal from the HELP Committee will increase Pell grants, will increase the availability of loans to students, and will reduce the interest rates on those loans. If we do not go forward with reconciliation and use reconciliation as a vehicle to protect this higher education initiative that comes out of the HELP Committee, we will actually end up increasing the costs to students. This letter is totally and obscenely inaccurate on that point. It is equally inaccurate on the issue of pensions. Without reconciliation instructions on pensions, we are going to see more and more companies thrown into bankruptcy. As a result, the taxpayers are going to have to pick up the pension obligations of those companies. The people who benefit from those pensions are going to see their pensions dramatically reduced because, under the bankruptcy rules, you can significantly cut your pension liability. But if we correct the pension laws and if we use reconciliation to increase the premium cost of the pensions, which will be paid primarily by the corporations, we will be able to save some of the pensions which are now in dire straits. The only way we can do this is probably through reconciliation. So if you don't have reconciliation, you are going to see more companies going into bankruptcy. You are going to see more pensions being wiped out. And you are going to see more employees--who have worked their whole life, invested in their company--find that that pension, which they thought they had, is actually going to be cut, if you follow the thought process which is being proposed here by the Democratic leadership of the Senate and the House of Representatives and which is totally the opposite of what their language in this letter talks about. It is a total inaccuracy; 180 degrees different from the actual language of this letter will occur. People will lose their pensions. The cost to the American taxpayer will go up if we do not have reconciliation dealing with pensions. The third area which this language talks about is Medicaid. Let's talk about Medicaid. The reconciliation instructions suggest that we reduce the rate of growth in Medicaid over the next 5 years from 41 percent to 40 percent. It was originally going to be back to 39 percent, but we went from 41 percent to 40 percent, a $10 billion reduction in the rate of growth--not in spending increases, in rate of growth, not a cut, on a $1.3 trillion base. In other words, we are going to spend $1.3 trillion on Medicaid over the next 5 years. What we asked in the budget was that we slow that rate of growth by 1 percent. We let it grow by 40 percent over the next 5 years instead of 41 percent or $10 billion. And how was that going to be accomplished? It was going to be accomplished in concert with the Governors who are going to get much more flexibility in the way that they deliver the Medicaid services. Almost every Governor who came to us said: We will be able to deliver better services and cover more people if we get this flexibility than if we don't get the flexibility. As a result, we can certainly handle the 1-percent slowing of rate of growth of increase in exchange for getting the flexibility which will give us the capacity to cover more people. Dramatically more people will be covered if we use our reconciliation vehicle to change the law so that Governors don't have to go through all the hoops they have to go through today in order to address Medicaid, so that we don't have people defrauding the system as we have today but, rather, have a system that is honest and covers people who need to be covered. But you can't get there from here unless you use reconciliation because you can't pass a bill in this Senate with 60 votes. You can't get 60 votes because the party on the other side of the aisle simply refuses to do anything constructive in this area, and they have talked walked away from the table. So you need reconciliation protection. In fact, there will be no services cut. To tie it into Katrina is so gross in its representation as to its inaccuracy as to be beyond blatant politics. The simple fact is, the reconciliation instructions assume no savings in Medicaid over the next year. All the savings come in years two, three, four, and five. Obviously, most all the spending for the Katrina situation is going to occur in the next year. To tie it into Katrina is absurd. This letter is not surprising because it comes from people who oppose discipline in the budget to begin with, but its assertions are, even by the standards of politics in this body, bold in their inaccuracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to join with all my colleagues and with America in expressing our condolences to the Rehnquist family and, obviously, our great appreciation for his extraordinary service to this Nation. I hope at a later date to put in a more extensive statement. He was a man whose commitment to the law was exceptional, but his commitment to the country was even higher. We are very fortunate to have had him as our Chief Justice and as a Justice on the Supreme Court for so long.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes four cap adjustments to encourage adequate funding for program integrity efforts. In each of the four programs, continuing disability reviews, IRS tax enforcement, health care fraud and abuse control, and unemployment insurance, additional funding dedicated to program integrity can reduce improper payments and return money to the treasury. For example, the administration estimates that each $1 expended on continuing disability reviews returns $10 to taxpayers. Consistent with the President's request, section 404b of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make adjustments to the 302a allocations to the Appropriations Committee and discretionary spending limits when certain conditions are met relating to appropriations levels for these four program integrity initiatives. I note that our distinguished ranking member, Senator Conrad, is a real leader in the area of tax enforcement and worked to ensure that our congressional budget included $446 million to address the tax gap. These conditions having been met in the reported Labor, HHS, Education, and Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, HUD appropriations bills, I ask consent to insert a table into the Record which reflects the revised discretionary spending limits and 302a allocations to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The revised allocations for discretionary budget authority and outlays are the appropriate levels to be used for enforcement during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bills. I ask unanimous consent to have the following chart printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2005 budget through July 26, 2005. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2006 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, H. Con. Res. 95. The estimates show that current level spending is under the budget resolution by $4.986 billion in budget authority and by $27 million in outlays in 2005. Current level for revenues is $407 million above the budget resolution in 2005. Since my last report dated June 30, 2005, the Congress has cleared and the President has signed the TANF Extension Act of 2005, P.L. 109- 19, the Surface Transportation Act of 2005, Part II, P.L. 109-20, the Surface Transportation Act of 2005, Part III, P.L. 109-35, and the Surface Transportation Act of 2005, Part IV, P.L. 109-37 which changed budget authority and outlays. I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to remember and honor Senior Chief Petty Officer Daniel Healy of Exeter, NH for his service and supreme sacrifice for his country. Daniel exhibited a willingness and enthusiasm to serve and defend his country by joining the United States Navy. He was dedicated to a cause much greater than himself, demonstrated by his decision to join the U.S. Navy SEALs, one of the most challenging, rigorous, and elite fighting organizations in the history of the world. Navy SEALs are named after the environment in which they operate, the Sea, Air, and Land, and are the foundation of Naval Special Warfare combat forces. They are organized, trained and equipped to conduct a variety of Special Operations missions in all operational environments. SEAL training is extremely demanding, both mentally and physically, and produces the world's best maritime warriors that live by the motto of ``the only easy day was yesterday.'' Daniel knew that he would be continually challenged and surely would face dangerous assignments when he signed up for this premier fighting organization. He was a stellar example of today's elite warriors that are upholding the values of freedom and democracy around the world. Daniel graduated from Exeter High School in 1986, and answered the call to serve our great Nation when he enlisted in the Navy on June 5, 1990. He attended Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL School and Basic Airborne School from 1991-1992, and then was assigned to SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE for four years. After attending a year of extensive language training in California, Daniel was assigned to SEAL Delivery Team TWO in 1998 and was most recently stationed in Pearl Harbor, HI, again with SEAL Delivery Team ONE. Daniel dutifully and confidently led a training platoon in submerged delivery vehicles. He was deployed to the Middle East in March of 2005, for what should have been a six-month tour. Tragically, on June 28, 2005, Daniel made the ultimate sacrifice for this great Nation. Daniel and 16 other service members were killed while conducting combat operations when the MH-47 helicopter that they were aboard crashed in the vicinity of Asadabad, Afghanistan in Kumar Province. Throughout his career, Daniel earned a series of awards which testify to the dedication and devotion he held for his fellow SEALS, the Navy, and his country. Daniel's hard work and perseverance contributed greatly to his unit's successes and placed him among many of the great heroes and citizens that have paid the ultimate price for their country. Daniel was recognized throughout his distinguished career by receiving the Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Meritorious Unit Commendation, three Good Conduct Medals, and three National Defense Service Medals. He also attended the Basic Airborne School and was a graduate of language training at the Defense Language Institute, Monterey, CA. Daniel was truly an exceptional special operations warrior with more than 15 years of service and an unparalleled dedication to serve his county and fellow Navy SEALs. Daniel was also a noble and selfless family man, being a compassionate husband and father of four. He leaves behind a family proud of all that he had accomplished throughout his distinguished life and career in the military. His valor and service cost him his life, but his sacrifice will live on forever among the many dedicated heroes this Nation has sent abroad to defend freedom. My condolences and prayers go out to Daniel's family, and I offer them my deepest sympathies and most heartfelt thanks for the service, sacrifice, and example of their Navy SEAL, Senior Chief Petty Officer Daniel Healy. He was respected and admired by all those around him, and continually performed above and beyond all expectations while in U.S. Navy. Because of his efforts, the liberty of this country is made more secure.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, my colleague from New Hampshire, Congressman Jeb Bradley, successfully offered an amendment in the House of Representatives to this year's Foreign Operations appropriations bill as part of an effort to encourage the Romanian Government to act on an extremely important issue. I had originally intended to offer the same amendment here in the Senate, however, the Senator from Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee, has graciously offered to work with me on the issue. While the amendment would have specifically limited assistance to Romania provided under the Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, SEED, account, the real problem we are trying to address is the plight of over 100 American families and almost 200 Romanian orphans these families have agreed to adopt. Despite the fact that the adoptions have been approved by Romania, these young orphans and their new American families have been waiting in limbo--for years in some instances. After approving these adoptions, Romania changed its adoption laws in order to comply with the European Union's legal standards as a condition of admittance into the European Union. However, since changing their law, Romanian officials have yet to clarify the status of these adoptions or act in any manner to fulfill the commitments that were made to these caring and compassionate Americans--or to fulfill the hopes of their own orphans. This past March, Romanian President Basescu indicated to Members of Congress, representatives from the State Department, and several of the affected families that as soon as the European Union voted to admit Romania, his government would then move expeditiously to resolve the previously approved adoption cases. While the European Union voted to admit Romania in April, Mr. Basescu's pledge has yet to be honored by his government. Romania became a good ally of the United States almost immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union and indeed played a pivotal role leading to the breakup. It is out of respect for the generally good relations between our countries--and with the hope that Romania will reciprocate in equal good faith--that I have decided not to offer the amendment in the Senate as I originally planned to do. Instead, I will work during the conference on the bill to come up with a solution to this issue which is in the best interests not only of our two countries, but those of the families and orphans who have unnecessarily been kept apart too long as well. I hope that the Romanian Government will seize this opportunity afforded to them and take appropriate and expeditious action-- posthaste--to allow these children to join their new families here in America.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006, H.R. 3057, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $31.842 billion in budget authority and $34.998 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2006 for the Department of State and foreign assistance programs. Of these totals, $174 million in budget authority and outlays are for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2006. The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 2006 of $31.668 billion. This amount is $1 billion below the President's request, $3 million below the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Senate $11.4 billion more than the House-passed bill, and $3.2 billion above fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Is the Senator comfortable with the three we just sent over? I would ask the Chair if the Senator has seen the three I mentioned for unanimous consent.

Mr. GREGG. The three that we just sent up?

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are getting close to the end here. We hope there will be one vote left and that will be on final passage. Amendments Nos. 1160, 1206, and 1110, En Bloc I do, however, initially ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up: No. 1160, Mr. Reid; No. 1206, Mr. Sarbanes; No. 1110, Ms. Landrieu; and that they be agreed to by unanimous consent, en bloc.

Mr. GREGG. We will hold off and reserve the right on that.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, before we proceed to the vote, I do want to once again express my deep appreciation and thanks to the senior Senator in the Senate, the Senator from West Virginia, who has been exceptionally helpful as the ranking member of this committee and we could not have gotten this far without his help.