Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I understand there is an objection. I believe I have the-- do I have the floor?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is important to review the bidding here. The situation is that a budget point of order has been raised. It is properly founded, and there is a motion to waive it. The logic behind the point of order is very simple. We are taking a discretionary program and moving it over to be an entitlement program to benefit five States, primarily Louisiana, which will get 54 percent of the money that is allocated. It is hard to understand why we would want to create a new entitlement program simply for Louisiana to address their conservation concerns. There are a lot of States that have conservation concerns. There is, in my opinion, virtually no nexus between the conservation issues which will be addressed theoretically by this amendment, should it pass, and the energy that is being sought off the coast of Louisiana. But even if there were, it would be inappropriate to pass such an amendment to create a new entitlement unless you included other States which had the same type of impact, because they were producing energy, on their environment. Furthermore, we have heard a great deal about how Louisiana has a right to this money. They have an entitlement to this money. Those were the words used by my friends across the aisle. As we look at the numbers relative to how funds are disbursed from the Federal Government, it appears that Louisiana is doing pretty well. For every dollar Louisiana sends to the U.S. Treasury, Louisiana gets $1.43 back. That is pretty darn good. They are getting a 43-cent bonus on every dollar they spend from what they send up here. Of the five States that will benefit from this, all of them get more money back than they send to Washington, and four get substantially more money. In fact, they are in the top 10 of States to get more money back. The equities of this Louisiana case are weak, to say the least. When you throw into the factor that they already have a dedicated fund--the only State in the country--for all the money raised as a result of people running lawnmowers in places such as Montana, Oregon, or Massachusetts, you end up, if you start your lawnmower or your snowblower, sending money to Louisiana to help them with environmental mitigation. They already have a fund, and they want more on top of that. The issue is simple. We passed a budget. The other side of the aisle didn't participate in the process. The Republican side of the aisle did. We passed a budget. Now the question is, Are we going to enforce that budget or are we going to spend money creating an entitlement program that is totally outside of the bounds of the budget, which is wrong, and which has no equities behind it, other than that group of States decided to raid the Federal Treasury? It seems to me we have to make some decisions as to whether we are going to enforce the budget process. I note that the administration supports this point of order and opposes this amendment. I hope my colleagues will join me in that position, also. I yield back the remainder of my time. The yeas and nays have been ordered, as I understand it.

Mr. GREGG. Well, since it is my point of order, I would like to go last, and I will need about 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. So I have the last say here and then we will go to a vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Is there unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. GREGG. I look forward to that.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I leave it to the good offices of the chairman of the committee, who is an exceptional floor leader, to tell me when he wants to have a vote.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, would the Senator from Louisiana yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. My position is that is not technical.

Mr. GREGG. It appears to be the Senator's position that since this budget point of order involves taking a discretionary program and making it an entitlement program that that is a technical point.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. Is it the position of the Senator from Louisiana, therefore, that when a discretionary program is taken and turned into a direct spending entitlement program, that that is a technical point?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the forthrightness of the Senator from Louisiana. She has made my case. She says it is revenuesharing. I agree with her. She says it is an entitlement. I agree with her. She says they want their share. I agree that is what this plan would do. It would create a new entitlement. It would take money from the general fund and send it to Louisiana. Fifty-four percent of the money under this amendment goes to Louisiana. The amendment started out as a $200 million a year amendment. Now it is up to $250 million a year, which would mean Louisiana would get about $135 million. The issue of whether it violates the budget is obvious. It does. And the issue of whether it is technical is obvious. It is not technical. It would create a new entitlement. And it is certainly not technical to say five States should have a unique role in conservation revenues from the Federal general treasury, that they should have a unique right to that as compared to other States which have equal arguments of equity relative to conservation. So it is very hard to understand--well, no, it is not hard to understand. The Senator from Louisiana made the case. They want their share, they want revenuesharing, and they want an entitlement. That is what they are going after here. It is a grab at the Federal Treasury. Maybe they will be successful at it. But before they do that, they are going to have to at least overcome a point of order and vote to disregard the budget. At this point, I do make that point of order. Mr. President, this additional spending in this amendment would cause the underlying bill to exceed the committee's section 302(a) allocation; and, therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I submit for the Record a clarification to the Senate Committee Allocation tables published on pages 88 and 89 of House Report 109-62, the Report to accompany H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006. The revised tables are consistent with committee allocation tables published in prior years' conference reports on budget resolutions. The following tables display the clarified Senate Committee allocations.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, section 308 of H. Con. Res. 95 the FY 2006 Budget Resolution--permits the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make adjustments to the allocation of budget authority and outlays to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, provided certain conditions are met. Pursuant to section 308, I hereby submit the following revisions to H. Con. Res. 95: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $ in billions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Current Allocation to Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: FY 2005 Budget Authority.......................... 5.124 FY 2005 Outlays................................... 3.922 FY 2006 Budget Authority.......................... 4.600 FY 2006 Outlays................................... 4.135 FY 2006-2010 Budget Authority..................... 19.461 FY 2006-2010 Outlays.............................. 18.898 Adjustments: FY 2005 Budget Authority.......................... n/a FY 2005 Outlays................................... n/a FY 2006 Budget Authority.......................... .098 FY 2006 Outlays................................... .098 FY 2006-2010 Budget Authority..................... .740 FY 2006-2010 Outlays.............................. .672 Revised Allocation to Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: FY 2005 Budget Authority.......................... 5.124 FY 2005 Outlays................................... 3.922 FY 2006 Budget Authority.......................... 4.698 FY 2006 Outlays................................... 4.233 FY 2006-2010 Budget Authority..................... 20.201 FY 2006-2010 Outlays.............................. 19.570 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak a little bit about the Department of Homeland Security. I have the good fortune to chair their appropriations committee, and we will be marking up the appropriations bill relative to that agency next week, hopefully, if we can straighten out the proper allocations for funding within the budget, which I expect to happen today under the leadership of Chairman Cochran. The Homeland Security Department is a big one because, of course, this goes to the essence of how we protect ourselves as a nation, how we make sure that we are ready should we be attacked, and how we, hopefully, make it possible for us to avoid such an attack. Regrettably, the Department of Homeland Security has been thrown together and has had some problems as it has tried to shake out in the post-9/11 world. In fact, the problems have been so extreme that almost a day does not go by that we do not see an inspector general report or a GAO report outlining some function of that agency which simply is not working correctly. Today, there was a report where the inspector general found that there were no backup computer systems within the Department for some of the critical agencies that are involved, but that is only one of literally a stack of GAO and inspector general reports which probably is 2 or 3 feet high. There is a lot to do in this agency. Certainly, I congratulate the President on bringing aboard Secretary Chertoff. I know he is a hard- driving and committed individual, and I know he is going to try to put together programs which will get that agency focused and functioning in a manner in which the American people expect. As we look at the agency, however, I do think we have to be driven by a certain theory or theme, a set of policies. The first is that we address threat first and that we start with the highest threats as being the first threats which we should focus on. Of course, the highest threats are weapons of mass destruction coming into the country or being developed in the country which would be used against American citizens. Those weapons involve things such as chemical or biological weapons or potentially some sort of nuclear device. So we must prepare ourselves and focus that Department on making sure that it is ready to deal with those types of threats. Some of the responsibility for making ourselves adequately prepared in the area, especially biologics, falls outside the Department and falls with the CDC or HHS--the Health and Human Services Department-- which have responsibility for developing vaccines. NIH, for example, National Institutes of Health, has the responsibility for making sure that we are on course to bring on line adequate responses should we be attacked with a biological weapon such as anthrax, a plague or botulism. The Department still has a huge role in this area, and it obviously has a role in the nuclear area of detection and making sure that we are ready to try to anticipate and stop a weapon of that sort. Below that level of addressing the weapons of mass destruction issues, we have to look at the other areas of threat and how we as a government are structured to handle it. There was a report today that the President of the United States, in a meeting with the leadership of the House at least, and maybe the Senate, said that he thought we should be focusing on border security as a priority in the area of maintaining our security as a nation. I think that is absolutely true. Most Americans today wonder why there are still literally tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people coming across our borders, entering this country illegally. A lot of other Americans wonder why today there is so much happening in the area of people coming into the country without us knowing what their purposes are or what their potential threat is as individuals. There is concern about our capacity to screen folks who are coming into this Nation who may have as one of their purposes to do us harm. We need to strengthen our ability to stay on top of this situation. There is significant concern about what is happening within our ports and whether we are putting in place systems which adequately review and give us the capacity to address what might be in a container in one of the hundreds of thousands of containers that come into this country on a daily basis. So this is an area of high priority. If this report is correct, it is very good that the President has decided to put significant focus on the issue of border security beyond what was obviously energy that was being put into that effort to begin with anyway. There is no question there has been significant effort in this area, but it needs a lot more effort, and that brings me to what we are planning to do with the appropriations bill. I want to lay out a bit of a precursor to that bill so people will know what is coming and can anticipate it. Basically, what we intend to do is reorient, to the extent we can, funds within the moneys we have available to us for the Department of Homeland Security to focus on border security because we consider that--or I happen to consider--after we go below the weapons of mass destruction issue, to be the most significant area of need from the standpoint of protecting our national security and making sure that we are able to manage our national security. Unfortunately, the proposal that came up to us from the administration prior to this recent discussion which occurred at the White House yesterday or the day before did not put the type of resources or focus on that Department that was necessary within the context of the entire Homeland Security Department. As a result, in order to accomplish that within the dollars we have--and the dollars are going to be fairly significant because the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I believe, has stated not publicly yet but has at least implied that he intends to fund aggressively this activity of the Federal Government because he understands the importance of the security of our Nation. He used to be chairman of this subcommittee and certainly knows its needs. So he is going to give us an allocation which is fairly significant. Within that allocation we do intend to reform and restructure so that we are putting more money into homeland security. That is going to mean that other accounts we might want to have funded at a higher level are not going to be funded at quite so high a level. We are going to set priorities. My view of how we fund the issue of protecting our national security is that we address the issue of threat, pick the highest threat, and fund responses to that threat. After the issue of weapons of mass destruction, the highest threat is our failure to manage our borders; thus, we are going to put more money into that. That means we will have to take money from accounts which are not necessarily going to make those folks happy in those accounts, but it is necessary if we are going to adequately fund this area. It is a two-step effort, really. First, we have to put on the border the necessary capability to have a reasonable review of who is coming into the country and what is coming into the country. Today, we do not have that capacity. Within that effort we need to have not only people, but we need to have infrastructure in the form of technology capability and in the form of physical plant capability. Secondly, we have to have a program in place as a nation which does not create an incentive for people to come into the country illegally. That gets into this whole question of guest worker. My Appropriations Committee may not have that jurisdiction. We would love to have that jurisdiction. We have it marginally, but that is an authorizing exercise, and maybe it will be debated on this bill. But, in any event, we are going to focus on that first part where we do have jurisdiction, which is we are going to significantly tool up our physical and personnel capabilities and our technology capabilities in order to try to address border security at the first level, which is a question of having the people and the resources on the borders, in the ports, in order to effectively manage our borders. This is not an overnight event. This has been attempted before and it has been singularly unsuccessful. When I had responsibility for Immigration and Border Patrol in the prior committee that was moved over from the Justice Department when they had the Justice Department responsibility moved over to Homeland Security, we were in the midst of trying to gear up the number of Border Patrol agents and we made a commitment to add literally thousands of Border Patrol agents over a series of years. Unfortunately, the Border Patrol first was not able to recruit the people at the price we were willing to pay them because the people were required to be bilingual and actually had talents that in the marketplace could command more than we were willing to pay them, and second, we did not have the training facilities, so we ended up never reaching the increase in numbers of Border Patrol we need in order to effectively address the border. We are going to try again. The Border Patrol told us the number they think they can train up in a year. We are going to give them more training capacity so in later years we can train more people. We are going to put in pay scales--we already have--that will make it a more attractive job. And we are going to start to hire people who can do the job effectively at fairly significant numbers. On top of that, we have to do other things. There is within the Department of Homeland Security a program called US-VISIT, about which I have serious misgivings. It is a massive computer undertaking. I have seen these before in other agencies and my sense is this computer initiative is not going well and is not evolving the software and hardware capabilities necessary. We are going to try to focus on that and hopefully turn that corner so that program will in the end be an asset, so we will know who is coming in the country. There is other work we need to do. We need to increase the number of detention beds. We need to increase the number of people who are doing the prosecution of detainees. We need to increase the capability, the physical plant capacity of the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs officers. We need a lot of physical plant and people and technology and we are going to take from other accounts to try to accomplish that as we move this Homeland Security bill forward. I am putting people on notice that this is the direction we are going. It is my opinion as we move this bill across the floor there should be and will be a lot of interest in this area because securing our borders is, as the President has stated at least indirectly, through hearsay as presented by the leadership of the House, a priority on which it is time we focused like a laser beam and took some action.

Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama for a question, or I will yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Alabama has pointed to one of the many anecdotal but glaringly difficult instances that should cause us all concern. We are hearing anecdotal information that the Border Patrol is finding material that is clearly written in Arabic, and is clearly Islamic fundamentalist, at the border. People have left it there or it has been left behind by people coming across the border, it appears. So that is obviously an extreme concern. But your story reflects the fact that these borders are simply not controlled and we don't have the capacity to handle the people when we do catch them. That is going to take a rethinking of the effort. It is going to take a lot of resources. As we move forward as a Congress, we have to think about: Are we putting too many resources in other accounts when we should be focusing on the border? I will take two examples. One is TSA, our transportation security, which we see in our airports. How many people can we afford there versus the border? The first responder funds that are going out not necessarily on the basis of threat but on the basis of formula, can we afford that in light of the fact we have a threat, which is the border, or should we take another look at other approaches to funding a significant increase in the border security effort? I look forward to working with the members of the Judiciary Committee. Our role is the money role. We look to you folks to give us the authorizing leadership, which I know you have in the past. You certainly have and certainly other members in your committee are leaders in this area. We look forward to any ideas or thoughts you have which you want to bring forward. I do think on this bill we should have a fairly open and substantive debate as to how we are going to move forward on the issue of border security. Clearly the White House is committed to this. It is going to take resources.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Higher Education for Freedom Act. This bill will establish a competitive grant program making funds available to institutions of higher education, centers within such institutions, and associated nonprofit foundations to promote both graduate and undergraduate programs focused on the teaching and study of traditional American history and government, and the history and achievements of Western Civilization. The program will help ensure that more postsecondary students have the opportunity to participate in programs focused on these critical subjects and that prospective teachers of history and government have access to a solid foundation of content knowledge. Today, more than ever, it is important to preserve and defend our common heritage of freedom and civilization, and to ensure that future generations of Americans understand the importance of traditional American history and the principles of free government upon which this Nation was founded. This knowledge is not only essential to the full participation of our citizenry in America's civic life, but also to the continued success of the American experiment in self-government, which binds together a diverse people into a single Nation with common purposes. However, college students' lack of historical literacy is quite startling, and too few of our colleges and universities are focused on the task of imparting this fundamental knowledge to the next generation. A survey of students at America's top colleges found that seniors could not identify Valley Forge, words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution. Given high school-level American history questions, 81 percent of the college seniors would have received a D or F, the report found. One college professor informed me that her students did not know which side Lee was on during the Civil War, or whether the Russians were allies or enemies in World War II. A student of hers asked why anyone should care what the Founding Fathers wrote. As unfortunate as these findings are, they are perhaps not surprising. A survey conducted several years ago found that not one of America's top fifty colleges and universities required its students to take a course in American history. More recently, another report documented the extent to which our top postsecondary institutions have abandoned the traditional core requirements that once gave students a systemic grasp of our nation's ideals, institutions, and origins. Indeed, only about a dozen undergraduate programs at major American colleges and universities have a central focus on American constitutional history and principles. We are doing our students a disservice if we allow them to graduate from an institution of higher education without a solid understanding of and appreciation for our democratic heritage. We cannot hope to preserve our democracy without taking action to remedy our students' historical illiteracy. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``If a nation expects to be ignorant--and free--in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.'' I believe the time has come for Congress to do something to promote the teaching and study of traditional American history at the postsecondary level, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Mikulski to introduce the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act. We are introducing this much needed coastal protection act along with Senators Sarbanes, Biden, Corzine, Snowe, Reed, Cantwell, Murray, Cochran, Kerry, Wyden, and Inouye. In addition, this legislation is supported by the Trust for Public Land, Coastal States Organization, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Association of National Estuary Programs, the Land Trust Alliance, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, The Conservation Fund, NH Audubon, Restore America's Estuaries, and National Estuarine Research Reserve Association. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act promotes coordinated land acquisition and protection efforts in coastal and estuarine areas by fostering partnerships between nongovernmental organizations and Federal, State, and local governments. As clearly outlined by the U.S. Commission of Ocean Policy, these efforts are urgently needed. With Americans rapidly moving to the coast, pressures to develop critical coastal ecosystems are increasing. There are fewer and fewer undeveloped and pristine areas left in the Nation's coastal and estuarine watersheds. These areas provide important nursery habitat for two-thirds of the Nation's commercial fish and shellfish, provide nesting and foraging habitat for coastal birds, harbor significant natural plant communities, and serve to facilitate coastal flood control and pollutant filtration. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act pairs willing sellers through community-based initiatives with sources of Federal funds to enhance environmental protection. Lands can be acquired in full or through easements, and none of the lands purchased through this program would be held by the Federal Government. This bill puts land conservation initiatives in the hands of State and local communities. This new program, authorized through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at $60,000,000 per year, would provide Federal matching funds to States with approved coastal management programs or to National Estuarine Research Reserves through a competitive grant process. Federal matching funds may not exceed 75 percent of the cost of a project under this program, and non-Federal sources may count in-kind support toward their portion of the cost share. This coastal land protection program provides much need support for local coastal conservation initiatives throughout the country. For instance, I have worked hard to secure significant funds for the Great Bay estuary in New Hampshire. This estuary is the jewel of the seacoast region, and is home to a wide variety of plants and animal species that are particularly threatened by encroaching development and environmental pollutants. By working with local communities to purchase lands or easements on these valuable parcels of land, New Hampshire has been able to successfully conserve the natural and scenic heritage of this vital estuary. Programs such as the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection program will further enable other States to participate in these community- based conservation efforts in coastal areas. This program was modeled after the U.S. Department of Agriculture's successful Forest Legacy Program, which has conserved millions of acres of productive and ecologically significant forest land around the county. I welcome the opportunity to offer this important legislation, with my good friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. I am thankful for her leadership on this issue, and look forward to working with her to make the vision for this legislation a reality, and to successfully conserve our coastal lands for their ecological, historical, recreational, and aesthetic values.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Mikulski to introduce the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act. We are introducing this much needed coastal protection act along with Senators Sarbanes, Biden, Corzine, Snowe, Reed, Cantwell, Murray, Cochran, Kerry, Wyden, and Inouye. In addition, this legislation is supported by the Trust for Public Land, Coastal States Organization, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Association of National Estuary Programs, the Land Trust Alliance, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, The Conservation Fund, NH Audubon, Restore America's Estuaries, and National Estuarine Research Reserve Association. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act promotes coordinated land acquisition and protection efforts in coastal and estuarine areas by fostering partnerships between nongovernmental organizations and Federal, State, and local governments. As clearly outlined by the U.S. Commission of Ocean Policy, these efforts are urgently needed. With Americans rapidly moving to the coast, pressures to develop critical coastal ecosystems are increasing. There are fewer and fewer undeveloped and pristine areas left in the Nation's coastal and estuarine watersheds. These areas provide important nursery habitat for two-thirds of the Nation's commercial fish and shellfish, provide nesting and foraging habitat for coastal birds, harbor significant natural plant communities, and serve to facilitate coastal flood control and pollutant filtration. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act pairs willing sellers through community-based initiatives with sources of Federal funds to enhance environmental protection. Lands can be acquired in full or through easements, and none of the lands purchased through this program would be held by the Federal Government. This bill puts land conservation initiatives in the hands of State and local communities. This new program, authorized through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at $60,000,000 per year, would provide Federal matching funds to States with approved coastal management programs or to National Estuarine Research Reserves through a competitive grant process. Federal matching funds may not exceed 75 percent of the cost of a project under this program, and non-Federal sources may count in-kind support toward their portion of the cost share. This coastal land protection program provides much need support for local coastal conservation initiatives throughout the country. For instance, I have worked hard to secure significant funds for the Great Bay estuary in New Hampshire. This estuary is the jewel of the seacoast region, and is home to a wide variety of plants and animal species that are particularly threatened by encroaching development and environmental pollutants. By working with local communities to purchase lands or easements on these valuable parcels of land, New Hampshire has been able to successfully conserve the natural and scenic heritage of this vital estuary. Programs such as the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection program will further enable other States to participate in these community- based conservation efforts in coastal areas. This program was modeled after the U.S. Department of Agriculture's successful Forest Legacy Program, which has conserved millions of acres of productive and ecologically significant forest land around the county. I welcome the opportunity to offer this important legislation, with my good friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. I am thankful for her leadership on this issue, and look forward to working with her to make the vision for this legislation a reality, and to successfully conserve our coastal lands for their ecological, historical, recreational, and aesthetic values.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Higher Education for Freedom Act. This bill will establish a competitive grant program making funds available to institutions of higher education, centers within such institutions, and associated nonprofit foundations to promote both graduate and undergraduate programs focused on the teaching and study of traditional American history and government, and the history and achievements of Western Civilization. The program will help ensure that more postsecondary students have the opportunity to participate in programs focused on these critical subjects and that prospective teachers of history and government have access to a solid foundation of content knowledge. Today, more than ever, it is important to preserve and defend our common heritage of freedom and civilization, and to ensure that future generations of Americans understand the importance of traditional American history and the principles of free government upon which this Nation was founded. This knowledge is not only essential to the full participation of our citizenry in America's civic life, but also to the continued success of the American experiment in self-government, which binds together a diverse people into a single Nation with common purposes. However, college students' lack of historical literacy is quite startling, and too few of our colleges and universities are focused on the task of imparting this fundamental knowledge to the next generation. A survey of students at America's top colleges found that seniors could not identify Valley Forge, words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution. Given high school-level American history questions, 81 percent of the college seniors would have received a D or F, the report found. One college professor informed me that her students did not know which side Lee was on during the Civil War, or whether the Russians were allies or enemies in World War II. A student of hers asked why anyone should care what the Founding Fathers wrote. As unfortunate as these findings are, they are perhaps not surprising. A survey conducted several years ago found that not one of America's top fifty colleges and universities required its students to take a course in American history. More recently, another report documented the extent to which our top postsecondary institutions have abandoned the traditional core requirements that once gave students a systemic grasp of our nation's ideals, institutions, and origins. Indeed, only about a dozen undergraduate programs at major American colleges and universities have a central focus on American constitutional history and principles. We are doing our students a disservice if we allow them to graduate from an institution of higher education without a solid understanding of and appreciation for our democratic heritage. We cannot hope to preserve our democracy without taking action to remedy our students' historical illiteracy. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``If a nation expects to be ignorant--and free--in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.'' I believe the time has come for Congress to do something to promote the teaching and study of traditional American history at the postsecondary level, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Oklahoma and other colleagues who have risen today to support the nomination of John Bolton to be our U.N. ambassador. The United Nations is a unique institution, obviously. It is an institution which has gone through its good times and some bad times. Many of us, on our side of the aisle especially, have been critical of the United Nations over the years for different activities, whether they have been policy driven or, in some cases, just the operations aspects of the United Nations. But I think, at least for my part, I agree that it is an extremely important institution, that it represents an attempt by the community of nations across the world to find a forum where they can interact and, hopefully, reach conclusions which are constructive to mankind generally and especially address issues which cannot and should not be addressed by nation states individually, such as issues involving large expansions of disease, issues involving the treatment of children around the world, issues involving the questions of war. It is important we have a forum where nations can come together and try to work together and, if they disagree, at least have the disagreements be more transparent and, therefore, the ability, hopefully, to reach agreements, and at least have the capacity to temper those disagreements, which is more probable of occurring as a result of transparency. It is an institution which, by its very nature, is going to have difficulty reaching consensus and moving forward on extremely complex issues and issues which are intensely felt because of the fact that it represents such a diverse collection of the world, almost the entire world, for all intents and purposes, nation states which all have different purposes and interests. But it is a very important forum, and it is something that we, as a country, clearly were one of the originators of in San Francisco after the war. It actually is the outgrowth of Woodrow Wilson's concepts with the League of Nations. We have helped it evolve and grow, and we have basically underwritten it. The American taxpayers, for better or worse, pay approximately 25 percent of all the costs the U.N. incurs, whether they are operational costs or peacekeeping costs. That number varies between those two accounts, but the number is very significant. I used to chair the appropriating committee which had jurisdiction over those funds, and it was frustrating at times to send the money because I felt their actions in a number of areas, to be kind, maybe involved a bit of mismanagement, to be kind, and in other areas were just misguided but were part of the whole. As a participating member state, we have an obligation to support the institution and to try to correct it from within. How do you correct it from within? I think this administration has made a very aggressive effort to try to make the U.N. more accountable, first in the area of operations, in the area of just the basic management of the institution, reducing the amount of patronage, reducing the amount of misallocation of funds. This administration has focused aggressively on that. And secondly, this administration has made a very aggressive effort in the area of initiating policy, policy which may impact how we deal with AIDS in Africa, how we deal with the health care problems across the world, and the pandemics that are coming at us, regrettably, and how we deal, obviously, with peacekeeping initiatives in a variety of different pressure points around the world, especially in the Middle East and in Africa and, of course, in the Balkans to some degree. So we have, as a Government--and this Government specifically, the Government under President George Bush--aggressively pursued policies to try to focus the U.N. on trying to be a better managed place and being an institution which better, more effectively reflects policies of democracy and liberty. That has been our basic theme in trying to work within the U.N. structure. John Bolton brings to the table the expertise necessary to continue that initiative. He may be rough around the edges on occasion. There is no question about that. But there is also nothing wrong with that. If being rough around the edges on occasion is a detriment, a personality trait which people should not have, then I guess there are a lot of us here who should not be in the Senate. The fact is, you have to be aggressive and you have to be willing to assert your view and the views that you are projecting as a representative of this country if you are going to be effective in making a case for this Nation. John Bolton will accomplish that in the U.N., in my opinion. In fact, it is his type of personality in the sense of his willingness to aggressively advocate a position which is consistent with our promotion, as a nation, of liberty, democracy, and honesty within the management of the U.N. ``Honesty'' may be too strong a word, but at least more efficiency within the management of the U.N. That will be the greatest strength that he brings to the table there. People will understand clearly where America is coming from, and it is important they understand that. And the American taxpayer will know that we, within the hallways of the U.N., will have someone who is going to advocate for efficient and effective use of those tax dollars we are sending there. That is our right, I believe, as taxpayers, to ask for that type of leadership within the U.N. So John Bolton, in my opinion, with his broad expertise in foreign policy and with his commitment to promoting this administration's commitment to the promotion of liberty and the promotion of democracy across the globe, and to fighting terrorism, is the right person for this job. I regret he has been held up. And it appears Members of the other side intend to try to filibuster his appointment. A President should have, just as a matter of policy, a person in the position at the U.N. who is of his choosing. This is the right of a President, to send a person to the U.N. who the President feels most effectively will advocate the policies of the administration because it is, after all, the President who has the primary responsibility of promoting foreign policy within our Government structure. It is not the responsibility of the Congress, although there are a lot of folks in this body who appear to think they are Secretary of State. The fact is, the Constitution does not provide that portfolio to the Congress, it provides it to the President and the President's appointees to Cabinet- level positions, which the U.N. ambassador position represents. So it seems highly inappropriate that we should be holding up his nomination unless someone can show definitively that he does not have the personal integrity or the personal honesty to serve in the position. If individuals disagree with his ability or his capacity to carry out the job, that is not really our call, unless that disagreement is a function of honesty, integrity relative to the individual's qualifications, because in this instance it is the President's right to pick the individual he thinks can carry out the job most effectively, and the President has picked John Bolton. I have not heard anything from anybody that calls into question John Bolton's integrity or honesty. I heard a lot of people who expressed frustration about maybe how he manages individuals, but that clearly is not the criteria for rejecting a nominee to a Cabinet-level position. If it were, there would have been a lot of nominees rejected under every President who has ever nominated individuals because all of us have warts, and many of those people who have been nominated to Cabinet positions clearly had a number of warts. So I do think it is inappropriate to pursue a filibuster in this instance. To have a policy disagreement with the President as to the way he approaches the U.N., that may be appropriate. That policy disagreement can be debated, but it should not ensue or lead logically to a filibuster of an individual who has a nomination to the position because it is, after all, the President's right to choose individuals to serve at his Cabinet-level positions. Those individuals should be confirmed in a timely manner so that the President has the capacity to pursue foreign policy initiatives and the leadership of this Nation on the issues of foreign policy with a full complement, a full team of individuals to support his initiatives. I do hope we will move forward to a final vote on Mr. Bolton this afternoon. People who feel he is the wrong choice--and they may have policy differences with the President on how we are pursuing liberty and democracy across the globe--can vote against him on that basis, but at least give him a vote, and give him a vote promptly. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 May 25, 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 $5.106 billion in budget authority and by $72 million in outlays in 2005. Current level for revenues is $407 million above the budget resolution in 2005. This is my first report for fiscal 2005 and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed with the Record corrections to the Senate Committee Allocation tables published on pages 88 and 89 of House Report 109-62, the Report to accompany H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006. The allocation amounts for the Finance Committee contained small numerical errors. The tables display the corrected Senate Committee allocations.