Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senate voted last Wednesday morning, May 11, to waive the Budget Act point of order that applied against the Inhofe substitute, Senate Amendment 606. The Budget Committee has since received a cost estimate of that substitute from the Congressional Budget Office. As I pointed out last week, CBO was not able to provide a more timely estimate because the language was not provided to them until it became available on May 10, a day after the Inhofe substitute was put before the Senate. Apparently none of the committees of jurisdiction had asked CBO for an estimate of their combined amendment. So for the information of my colleagues and the public, I would like to enter a table into the Record that summarizes the status of this highway bill with regard to budgetary enforcement--showing why there was a 302(f) point of order that I raised. I would also like to place into the Record a table that addresses not the contract authority, which is the relevant unit of analysis for budgetary enforcement of this bill, but the deficit results of this bill. Last week the bill's proponents repeatedly asserted the bill is ``paid for'' over the 2005-2009 window of the bill and reduces the deficit by $14 billion over the 2005-2015 period. It is hard to know how anyone could say this because the Budget Committee and the other committees did not receive until yesterday CBO's estimate of highway trust fund outlays resulting from the Inhofe substitute. Combining those outlay estimates with JCT's estimate of the new revenues that would occur if the provisions of the substitute were actually enacted, we know that the substitute would increase the deficit by $0.5 billion over the 2005-2009 period, and would reduce the deficit by only $3.5 billion over the 2005-2015 period, not $14 billion as the proponents have claimed. But these budgetary effects come after other general-fund transfer provisions--relating, for example, to the 2.5 cents deficit reduction tax on gasoline and 5.2 tax subsidy for ethanol were enacted in the JOBS bill, P.L. 108-35--last fall. By creating higher paper entries into the highway trust fund, those enacted provisions will have the consequence of increasing the spending possible from the highway trust fund by $31 billion over the 2005-2015 period without a corresponding increase in new Federal revenues. This will have the effect of increasing the deficit by $31 billion over that period. It is true that both the President's budget request for 2006 and the 2006 budget resolution now contemplate spending those shifted resources on transportation programs. But combining those general-fund transfer provisions enacted last fall with possible enactment of the additional general-fund transfers and new revenues from general fund offsets in this Inhofe substitute before the Senate still will have the effect of increasing the deficit by $28 billion over the 2005-2015 period. Compared to the resources available for spending from the highway trust fund 7 months ago, if this Inhofe substitute is enacted, the increase in spending that will be enabled from the highway trust fund will increase the deficit by $28 billion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 2 tables displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 2 minutes off of my time, even though he doesn't appear to be agreeing with me.

Mr. GREGG. Those points having been made, I acknowledge defeat on this point. I admire, as I said, the chairman of the committee for being a successful chairman who knows how to get things done around here. We may disagree on occasion, but my admiration for him certainly does not abate in any way because of those disagreements. In fact, my respect grows. But do not expect we will disappear. We were not wilting violets around here on the Committee on the Budget. We will continue to try to make points on the points of order we think are appropriate.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair for that ruling. I hope that clarifies that point and responds, I believe, adequately to the points of the chairman of the Finance Committee that might not be the case. Let me summarize. We made a point of order, a motion to waive was brought forward, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and the chairman of the Transportation and Public Works Committee were successful by an overwhelming vote and we lost. I do not think that should lead to the chairman of the Committee on Finance coming to the Senate and suggesting the role of the Committee on the Budget in making these points is in some way inappropriate or irrelevant, that we should not take this effort to try to enforce a budget--especially when we passed the budget last week. I admire, as I said, the Finance Committee chairman a great deal. I am sorry this misunderstanding has occurred. But I do believe I have an obligation as chairman of the Committee on the Budget to at least speak up on behalf of my staff, who has done an extraordinary job under fairly difficult circumstances. In that context, for a more historical perspective on the highway bill, since this was cited by the chairman of the Committee on Finance, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Informed Budgeteer statement which is a budget statement summarizing the history of the highway bill.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, unfortunately, I rise because I feel it is necessary to respond to the statements of the chairman of the Finance Committee which were made on this floor, both personal to me as chairman of the Budget Committee and to the staff of the Budget Committee, which I thought was an unfortunate decision. Earlier we had a vote on waiving a point of order relative to whether this substitute, which is pending, was consistent with or is consistent with the budget we passed last Friday. Now, by definition that point of order would not have to have been waived if it was not well made. And by well made, I mean that the Chair would have ruled that this amendment, this substitute, did and does violate the budget resolution. The reason it violates the budget resolution, and I made this point earlier when I spoke, and I think I was accurate--in fact, I believe my comments this morning were entirely accurate, although they were represented to be inaccurate, regrettably--let me reiterate them. This budget resolution point of order lay because we went from a number of $284 billion--and this is the essence of the issue here--which was the agreed number, $284 billion--that is the number we agreed would be spent on the highway bill--we went from that number, under the substitute, to a number of $295 billion-plus. We don't know the final number because, quite honestly, there are so many pages in the amendment even CBO can't catch up with it, but we know it is at least $11.5 billion over the budget number, which was $284 billion. This number, $284 billion, was not only a number which had been agreed to under the budget last week, it was a number that the President had said he wanted and on which the President had reached an agreement with the congressional leaders, the Speaker of the House and the majority leader. So it was not a number pulled out of thin air, nor was it a number that was not reached after a significant amount of consultation. It was, rather, a number which was reached after having considered what we could afford, what was coming into the trust fund, what was going out of the trust fund, and what could be afforded in this area of highway construction. I think the representation was made, unfortunately, by the chairman of the Finance Committee, that the Budget Committee was acting irresponsibly, essentially--and that is my characterization; the words actually were a little stronger than that--when we raised the point of order, saying: Hey, listen, we passed a number at the number $284 billion, the President agreed with the majority leader and Speaker of the House that $284 was the number, and therefore we should stick to 284. That is our job as a Budget Committee. I understand, certainly, the chairman of the Finance Committee chairs the most powerful committee in the Senate by far. The Appropriations Committee is competitive, but our jurisdiction, unfortunately, with the shift toward entitlement spending, has been lessened. It used to be the Appropriations Committee had about 60 percent of the Federal spending. Now it is about 30 percent. Finance has about 50 percent of the Federal spending because it has all the major entitlement accounts. But we recognize--I certainly do as chairman of the Budget Committee--that the Finance Committee is one of the two most powerful committees in the Senate, of which the other one is not the Budget Committee. Certainly the Finance chairman has every right to come to the Senate floor and remind us of that, as he did. But it really isn't appropriate for him to come to the floor and suggest that we should not still do our job simply because we are not as powerful a committee as his; that our job should be basically we should stand out of the way and just be nice little folks who stand in the corner, and when the budget is getting run over by a powerful committee, just say: Hey, no, we don't get involved in that because we are not a powerful committee. The Budget Committee was not structured that way. The Budget Committee was actually structured to be sort of a conscience around here, a fiscal conscience of, What the heck are we doing? Yes, we only got 22 votes, which shows maybe our conscience isn't all that strong. But, in any event, we have an obligation to raise the issues. So when we raise those issues, I think for the chairman of the Finance Committee to come down here and say, in terms which were most aggressive and most intense, that the Budget Committee was acting inappropriately and its staff was acting inappropriately, I just think that is misdirected. It does understand, but it doesn't acknowledge the fact that the Budget Committee exists. He is on the Budget Committee; I guess he knows it exists--as he mentioned. He has been a good supporter of the Budget Committee. I have never denied that. I have always said he was a good supporter of the Budget Committee. I respect him. I think he is one of the best chairman around here, as I think this chairman, the chairman of the Public Works Committee, is. I am constantly impressed by what the Senator from Oklahoma is able to do here. He is good, and I admire that, as is the chairman of the Finance Committee, and the chairman of the Finance Committee is not only very good but he works very hard, as the Senator from Oklahoma, to be bipartisan, which I think is important, too. I tried to do that when I chaired an authorizing committee. But still that doesn't mean that we should ignore the importance of this issue. To get into the substance, to respond again to some of the points that have to be responded to--I am sorry they have to be respond to, but I do think they have to be responded to because the intensity of the argument that we were not accurate in raising this point of order is such that to let it just sit would be wrong. Again, I regret that I have to do this. The point, to go back to the essence of the issue, was that the budget set at $284 billion the level of allocation for the highway bill. Under this amendment, that spending goes up to $295 billion-plus. That was the point of order. As an ancillary to that discussion, we did get into the issue of just what has happened in the history of this highway bill. Yes, last year through the JOBS bill there was a finessing of the way money flows from account to account around here, so that the highway fund was given a lot more money at the expense of the general fund. I made reference to that. I didn't mention ethanol, although the response spent a lot of time on ethanol. In fact, I specifically didn't mention ethanol because I know that tends to incite some Members around here. I just simply said last year about $15 billion ended up being moved out of general fund activity, or being laid off on the general fund, in exchange for giving the highway fund an extra $15 billion. And no matter how you account for it, we end up $15 billion short. That is just the way it is. The money gets spent on the highway proposal, and so we are $15 billion short. The way it worked, to get specific, was that the subsidy to ethanol gasoline, which is about 5 cents a gallon which had been borne by the highway trust fund, was shifted over to the general fund, so the general fund ended up with about a $13 billion hit. The highway fund ended up with a $13 billion windfall, arguably. Then there was about $2.5 billion which historically had gone, since 1993, from the gas tax into the general fund, because under the 1993 agreement there had been an agreement that the gas tax would be raised--I think by 5 cents--and it was agreed at that time that half of that would go to the highway fund to build roads and the other half would go to deficit reduction, and historically those moneys have stayed there for deficit reduction or in the general fund. So that money was taken out of the general fund and moved back to the highway fund. It was probably a legitimate decision, but it did cost us $2.5 billion or thereabouts. So that is where the number came from. I think it was an accurate statement. We were basically putting about a $13 billion hole in the general fund in order to get this bill up to the $284 billion level. To go from the $284 billion level to the $295 billion level, which again created the point of order because that exceeded the allocation, the Finance Committee reported a bill which represented that they had offsets to pay for that difference. They said Joint Tax had scored it that way. First off, I said the offsets were illusory. I believe they are illusory. But I also made the point that even if they are not illusory, it didn't matter because it still created the problem for the budget, which is that you exceeded the $284 billion. But I think it is hard to argue--and again I use the term it didn't pass the ``straight face test''--to argue that an offset that has been used 14 times and failed 14 times is an offset that has much likelihood of success. The chairman makes the point, and it is a legitimate point, that he is a stick-to-it guy and he is going to get this someday no matter what, and he is going to stick to it no matter what. I admire that. He is a stick-to-it guy. His work on the bankruptcy bill has been extraordinary. His work on a lot of bills around here has been extraordinary, and that is probably because he is dogged on some of this stuff. When he bites ahold of something, he stays with it, and that is impressive. But I do think when folks are sitting back in the office, thinking about how to pay for this thing, and they came up with putting in the enterprise tax again after 14 attempts at using this item, that they knew the likelihood of that happening was very slim. So I think it was reasonable to say that number was illusory. But equally important, the representation that the Joint Tax Committee is the final arbiter of that question is something I believe has to be clarified, because that was the chairman's position. So I think I would like to know the clarification of this. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I believe I have the right to know whether Joint Tax or the Budget Committee is the final arbiter of that because, as I understand it, under section 201(f), which was cited by the chairman of the Finance Committee, but not entirely: The Budget Committee of the Senate and the House shall determine all estimates with respect to scoring points of order and with respect to execution of purposes of this act. I ask a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair: Who is the proper scorer of points of order relative to revenues and expenses?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, to respond in part--and in whole, hopefully--to some of the points that have been made here, let me begin by saying I have an immense amount of respect for the chairman of the committee and for the Senator from Missouri, for the ranking Democrat on the committee, the Senator from Vermont, a neighbor who is retiring and who has done great service for our country and has decided to relax and go back to a beautiful State. Of course, he is going to go to New Hampshire to buy his goods because we don't have a sales tax, by the way. The chairman does exemplary work. He has been a tireless advocate, obviously, of trying to get this highway bill across the floor. Honestly, I thought the Budget Committee had done its job when we went to the $284 billion number, which was a lot higher than where the President had started. I thought the President had done his job when he went to the $284 billion number as a compromise which was a lot higher than he started out. I think he was at $250 billion when he began this process. I thought we had reached agreement. Then Friday morning at 1 a.m., when we passed the budget, I was pretty sure we reached an agreement. The agreement was $284 billion. Unfortunately, the amendment which showed up Monday night put a pretty big hole in that budget--$11.5 billion. As I have said earlier, we have to ask ourselves, why did we pass the budget on Friday to have the effect on the next legislative day--the next legislative day--to break the budget by $11.5 billion. The Senator from Missouri says it is not a budget buster. I have to point out to the Senator from Missouri that yes, it is. That is what we are voting on. If it were not a budget buster, the Chair would not rule in my favor that it breaks the budget. That is what the motion is. The motion is this violates the Budget Act. It violates the Budget Act on 2 counts. I am not taking the first count because that is a procedural battle. I am taking the second count, which is the substantive battle, which is that this amendment violates the Budget Act because it exceeds the allocation to the committee by $11.5 billion. So it is a budget buster. If it were not a budget buster, you would not have to waive the rule, you know, so let's not throw that straw dog out there. And the offsets? I agreed with the chairman of the Finance Committee when he came to the floor last night and said, and I will quote: I also understand and agree with the House position that we should not mix general fund offsets and trust fund resources to that end. I agree with that. But, yet, this amendment, this substitute, does exactly that. It takes money out of the general fund, moves it over to the trust fund, and then claims that the trust fund spending is offset by very illusory alleged revenue increases in the general fund, as I pointed out in my earlier statement. One of these revenue increases, the biggest one, has been used 14 times in the last 2\1/2\ years--14 times. How many times can you use a revenue increase? We all know it is not a real revenue offset. We all know it is going to be dropped at conference. It has been dropped at conference every time it gets used; it gets used. It gets dropped, but the spending goes on. So as a practical matter the offsets, from the standpoint of the Budget Committee, do not plug the hole that is put in the budget, first because they do not apply to the trust fund which creates spending beyond the committee's allocation, and second because they exceed the general fund--they will not occur. I guess that's the best way to say it. They are not going to happen. The offsets are not going to happen. Excuse me, I don't want to be excessive here: $700 million of the alleged $11.5 billion we deem to be legitimate offsets. They will occur. But, independent of that, independent of whether this offset issue is real or not, and it is not real, by the way, the President--he is a Republican, he was just elected--reached an agreement with the House. He said, ``I am going to let you spend $30 billion more than I really want to spend in this area,'' but he has said--having made that concession to our colleagues because he got pressure--we are going to hold the line at $284 billion. That is it. No more. We all know that highways are important. We all know infrastructure is important. But we reached a consensus, first between the President and the House leadership. I agree, Senator Inhofe did not sign on to that idea, other than to bring a bill out at that number, but I agree, he is very forthright. He has always been committed to getting a higher number. But at least within the context of the greater party, the Republican Party, there was an agreement at $284 billion with the President of the United States. And then we confirmed that agreement last Friday with the budget for which 52 Republicans voted. I am not expecting any votes on this issue from the other side of the aisle. During the budget process they proposed amendments which added $260 billion to the budget, so clearly the issue of controlling spending is not that high on their testing, on their schedule of agenda items. But it should be on ours. We have a President of our party say $284 billion is the number, and when that has been agreed to by a large membership of our party including, I believe, the majority leader in the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and when we confirm that agreement by passing a budget that says that is the number, we should stay with that number. It is what I would call common sense and probably appropriate action. That is why it is important, I believe, that we hold this number. I respond to one other sidebar representation here--because it needs to be responded to but not because it is the essence of the debate--the question of the amendment that passed when we were marking up the budget, which had 80 votes, relative to how the additional highway spending would occur should additional highway spending be approved and be within the budget, called a trust fund. That trust fund had, as part of its structure, that if there was to be additional spending over $284 billion, it would have to be offset and it would have to come back to the Budget Committee so the Budget Committee could review it to determine whether the offsets were legitimate. That did not happen. The substitute occurred Monday night. We never saw it. It took us a long time to find it. It was 1,300 pages. People have been looking for a long time to find out exactly what it means. Even CBO is having a lot of trouble shaking it out. But we know we were never consulted on that number or how it was offset, which would have been the requirement under that reserve fund. Therefore, the representation that a vote on this waiver issue should be tied into your vote on that amendment issue is very hard to connect. In fact, the two pass in the night. There is no relationship between the vote that occurred in the budget debate and the vote on this waiver issue. This waiver issue is very simple. The chairman of the committee has moved to waive a budget point of order because the bill as it is presently structured spends more than the budget that we passed on Friday night by $11.5 billion. It spends that much more than the budget passed. The offsets, we believe, are illusory. I presume the Finance Committee will argue that they are not. But they have used them 14 times before, so I will leave it to the body to decide whether they are. But independent of that issue, the offset issue, the simple fact is this amendment puts an $11.5 billion hole in what was an agreed-to number relative to the allocation, relative to what was going to be spent, relative to what the President thought was the understanding, and relative to what we had in our budget. I see the majority leader is here. I yield the remainder of my time to the majority leader.

Mr. GREGG. And the opposition?

Mr. GREGG. What is the status of the time?

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

Mr. GREGG. The yeas and nays have been ordered, as I understand it.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending substitute increases spending in excess of the allocation to the Committees on Environment and Public Works, Banking and Commerce. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe I reserved the floor.

Mr. GREGG. I would ask that the time be evenly divided.

Mr. GREGG. I am asking that we move to this vote at 11:15, but if the Senator needs 5 minutes, we can make it 11:20.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon my making the point of order, should the chairman make a motion to waive that point of order, that vote be at 11:15 with the yeas and nays being considered as being ordered.

Mr. GREGG. We can just set the vote at 11:15 and you can debate it.

Mr. GREGG. Well, I will make the motion now and then ask we be in a quorum call until 11:15.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the highway bill which is presently before us comes to us pursuant to a budget agreement that was passed last Friday morning. In fact, I guess it was passed about 1 a.m. Friday morning. That budget agreement had in it language that said there would be $284 billion spent on highways under this highway agreement. It also had language in it referencing something which is called a reserve fund which essentially says if legitimate offsets could be found, and if they were determined to be legitimate by the chairman of the Budget Committee, then that number could be increased by the amount of those legitimate offsets. Initially, when the bill was brought forward it was brought forward at $284 billion. It was brought out of committee at $284 billion. On Monday during the wrapup session, by unanimous consent, that bill, which had already been subject to a substitute, was hit with another substitute that had 1,300 pages in it. Within those 1,300 pages--and they are not absolutely sure of this number yet--somewhere in the vicinity of $11.5 billion of new spending out of the highway trust fund. That in and of itself was inconsistent with the budget resolution that had been passed last Friday in that it was $11.5 billion over that resolution and was therefore out of kilter relative to the allocation given to the committee, the Public Works Committee. In addition, within those 1,300 pages which were submitted by substitute, by unanimous consent, on Monday night, one legislative day after the budget had been passed, were representations that the offsets had been placed in to pay for the $11.5 billion. There was no referral of those offsets to the Budget Committee as was required under the law that had just been passed on the prior legislative day in the reserve fund of that law. In fact, the offsets as represented first were offsets which would apply to the general fund, not to the highway fund, and therefore created a violation of the Budget Act. But second were offsets which do not pass what we might refer to as the ``straight face'' test. In other words, they were not legitimate offsets. In fact, one of the offsets which was referred to has been used 14 times in the last 2\1/2\ years--14 times. Yet it was referred to with a straight face, although I am sure there was a smile behind it, as a legitimate offset. It would be humorous were it not for the fact that it adds a $11.5 billion burden to the taxpayers, which on the prior Friday we had said we were not going to do to the taxpayers. So the bill as presently pending under the substitute, as put forward on Monday night, the 1,300 pages which are so extensive that CBO, which is the scorekeeper around here, has even had trouble figuring out what is in it, that bill is presently in violation, or that substitute is in violation of the Budget Act. It is quite simply unequivocally, unquestionably a budget buster. One must ask the very obvious question that when the Senate passes a budget on Friday of the legislative week, if on the Monday of the next week, which amounts to the next legislative day, if that next Monday you are going to by unanimous consent, late in the afternoon, during wrapup, put forward a substitute which includes in it a budget-busting expansion of spending with a euphemistic and illusory statement of offsets--self-serving, also, by the way--if we are at all serious as a Congress about disciplining ourselves when it comes to protecting the American taxpayer relative to the rate of growth of the Federal Government and Government expenditures. It would appear that if this substitute is allowed to survive in its present form, with this additional money being spent, which exceeds significantly what was agreed to in a budget that was passed the day before, the answer to that question would have to be, regrettably, no, we are not. In addition to that problem, there is the issue of the President. Now, rolling the Budget Committee around here is sort of good entertainment, and it happens, unfortunately, too regularly. But rolling the President of the United States, and especially when the party of the President of the United States decides to roll the President of the United States, is something a little more significant. The President has said 284 is the number, the President has said even if there are offsets, 284 is the number and we are not going above that number. Yet a bill is reported to the floor that met that number with the clear, obvious understanding now that it was going to be gamed, that 284 number was going to be ignored. And now we have a bill that is probably 295, 296, maybe 300. We are just not sure. We are talking billions, folks, just to put it in context. That is not $296. That is $296 billion, which is a lot of money. So the President has made it very clear--he has made it clear in his press conference, his administration has made it clear, the director of OMB has made it clear, and in an agreement with the House leadership there was a clear understanding the highway bill would spend $284 billion, not $296 billion, whether it was offset or not. Yet that position of the President is being--well, it is being more than ignored. It is being run over by a bulldozer or maybe a cement mixer or maybe a paver. But in any event it is being run over. And that seems a little bit inappropriate, slightly inappropriate to me. Since the President has decided to try to exercise some fiscal discipline, it would seem that we as a party that allegedly is a party of fiscal discipline would follow his lead rather than try to run him over. So you have two problems. You have the problem of a Republican Senate running over a Republican President because we want to spend more money--or at least some Members of the Senate do--and then you have the Republican Senate running over the Republican budget because some members want to spend more money. Then you have this gamesmanship, I guess would be the best term for it, which occurred on Monday night when you take 1,300 pages and throw it in under unanimous consent and put in it language which raises spending by $11.5 billion and has these proposed offsets which do not pass the straight face test. So you wonder about that and you have to ask yourself where are we really going if we can't even discipline ourselves on something like this. You have to remember this bill did not start out at 284. It started out 2 years ago at, I think it was 219, maybe it was 220, maybe it was 230. It was in that range. Then last year, through another sleight of hand dealing with the funding mechanism, we shifted--we didn't but some did--$15 billion or $18 billion--I do not recall exactly--out of the general account over to the highway account claiming that there was no revenue impact, that this was an offset, of course, putting an $18 billion hole in the general fund in exchange for covering up with the extra spending in the highway fund. Then that, with a couple other manipulations, got us up to this 284 number which means that we are already in the hole on this bill relative to the budget approximately $18 billion before this next exercise of adding $11.5 billion on top of it. It is my obligation, obviously--I end up drawing the short straw around here by some degree by being Budget chairman, but it is an obligation I take on because somebody has to do it and it should be done--to be sort of the person who comes to the floor and says: What the heck are we doing? We pass a budget on Friday which says we are going to control spending, says we are going to limit highway spending to $284 billion, and then on Monday in wrapup, with 1,300 pages of obfuscation, there is thrown in $11.5 billion of new spending, and thrown in are a lot of illusory and baseless offsets. What the heck are we doing? Well, in the context of what the heck are we doing, I have at least the right to make us vote on this, at least the right to say to my fellow colleagues, if you want to do it, do it in the open a little bit. The way we should have done it, of course, was the way it was originally structured. There should have been a straight up-or-down issue of whether, A, this additional $11.5 billion was a good idea to spend over the budget; or, B, properly offset. That is not now possible to do. I admit the folks who thought this out were creative and they structured it so that is no longer possible to do. It was possible to do on Monday until there was wrapup but not possible to do now. That is the way it got structured, so I am left with very few options. Mr. President, I reserve the right to retain the floor for the purposes of discussing with the leader of the bill the timing on this next vote. Is it the leader's position that he would want to vote at 11:15?

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to remember and honor Sergeant Angelo Lozada, Jr. of Nashua, NH for his service and supreme sacrifice for his country. Angelo demonstrated a willingness and dedication to serve and defend his country by joining the United States Army. Just as many of America's heroes have taken up arms in the face of dire threats, Angelo dedicated himself to the defense of our ideals, values, freedoms, and way of life. 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. Angelo felt the call to serve our Nation early, and dutifully joined the Reserves after he graduated from high school. He served for 6 years in the New Hampshire Army National Guard's Bravo Battery, 1st Battalion, 172nd Field Artillery Regiment before signing up for active duty on July 26, 2000. He was deployed to Iraq in 2003, where he served in Alpha Battery, 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, stationed out of Camp Hovey, Korea. Tragically, on April 16, 2005, Angelo made the ultimate sacrifice for this great Nation. He died of injuries sustained while conducting combat operations in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. Throughout his career, Angelo earned a series of accolades which testify to the dedication and devotion he held for his fellow soldiers, the Army, and his country. Angelo's hard work and dedication 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. Angelo was recognized posthumously for his courageous actions in Iraq by receiving the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and an Army Commendation Medal. He had also been recognized throughout his distinguished career by receiving the Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and the Weapons Qualification Badge, M-16 Expert. He was also a graduate of the Primary Leadership Development Course and was recently promoted to Sergeant in May of 2004. Angelo was truly an exceptional soldier with more than 10 years of service and a father of three who had decided to reenlist after his tour of duty in Iraq. He leaves behind a family with a proud tradition of military service, including three brothers who served in the Army. My condolences and prayers go out to Angelo's family, and I offer them my deepest sympathies and most heartfelt thanks for the service, sacrifice, and example of their soldier, Sgt Angelo Lozada, Jr. He was respected and admired by all those around him, and continually performed above and beyond all expectations while in the United States Army. Because of his efforts, the liberty of this country is made more secure.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a few of my thoughts regarding the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill that the Senate is expected to pass today. In particular, I wanted to discuss the bill's important provisions that would improve the H-2B visa program and provide timely relief for seasonal businesses in my State and across the country. First, let me express my appreciation to my dear friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, who has been a tireless fighter for the seasonal employers in her State. She and I have worked together on this issue for several months, and I was proud to be the lead cosponsor of S. 352, the ``Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005.'' Our offices worked closely to draft this legislation, which was incorporated into the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill when the Senate overwhelmingly approved Senator Mikulski's H-2B amendment on April 19, 2005 by a vote of 94-6. I am pleased that this legislation was also accepted in conference and will soon become law. With the summer season soon upon us, I believe that the H-2B problem needs timely relief that is fair to all seasonal employers, and the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act will do exactly this. As most of us know, the 66,000 cap on H-2B visas was reached in early January; therefore, shutting out businesses that rely on H-2B workers in the spring and summer months. This seasonal inequity is unjustifiable, and therefore I am pleased that the H-2B provisions before us will divide the 66,000 cap so that 33,000 visas will be available for the first half of the fiscal year and the other 33,000 visas will be available for the second half of the fiscal year. To provide timely and meaningful relief, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act will also temporarily exempt returning H-2B workers from the statutory cap. For fiscal years 2005 and 2006, H-2B workers who had worked in the U.S. under an H-2B visa during the past three fiscal years will qualify for this exemption and will not be counted against the cap. Since the cap has already been hit for fiscal year 2005, the H-2B provisions in the supplemental appropriations bill will establish a ``look back''--namely, they allow the Department of Homeland Security to estimate how many of the H-2B visas already issued for this fiscal year were given to returning workers. This is necessary to ensure that the Department can swiftly apply the exemption for fiscal year 2005 and free up visas under the cap for new H-2B workers for this summer season. In addition, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act will allow the Department of Homeland Security to waive the Administrative Procedure Act to avoid having to issue rules and go through other hurdles to implement the H-2B provisions before us. This is intended to give the Department the ability to swiftly accept H-2B petitions and implement the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act in a timely manner so that businesses can employ H-2B workers this summer. As I stated earlier, I am pleased that Congress has finally acted to improve the H-2B program and provide timely relief for small and seasonal businesses. In my State, the H-2B program is of special concern to the tourist and logging industries, which are both important to the New Hampshire economy. For instance, in 2004 alone, New Hampshire's tourism industry generated $4 billion in revenues and nearly $140 million in rooms and meals taxes, which makes up about 25 percent of the State's total revenue stream. For a number of seasonal employers in my State, the short-term hiring needs and the nature of their businesses make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fully staff their positions with U.S. workers. H-2B workers therefore are the only lawful option to fulfill labor shortages when U.S. workers are not available. The Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act will help ensure that these seasonal employers can stay in business and use a program that has safeguards for U.S. workers. Moreover, as we try to reign in illegal immigration and bolster respect for our laws, I believe that Congress has shown wise judgment by passing this legislation. In addition to strengthening anti-fraud protections, these H-2B reforms will reward employers that follow the rules and will encourage the lawful hiring of temporary workers instead of the hiring of illegal aliens. Some provisions of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act are only temporary in nature and are intended to be a short-term fix. I recognize that significantly more work must be done to improve our immigration policies over the long term, including our guest worker programs. We can no longer accept having immigration laws that fail to bring about order along our borders and other points of entry or are ignored altogether. As such, Congress must re-double its efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this long needed effort.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the staff on the Budget Committee listed below be granted floor privileges for the duration and consideration of the conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 95: Senate Budget Committee Floor Privileges List, 109th Congress Amdur, Rochelle; Bailey, Stephen; Bargo, Kevin; Binzer, Peggy; Brandt, Dan; Browne, Mara; Cheung, Rock E.; Dempsey, Don; Duckworth, Cara; Esquea, Jim; Eyster, Sarah; Fisher, David; Friesen, K atherine; Green, Vanessa; Gudes, Scott B., (Staff Director, Full Access Pass); Haskell, Tyler; Havlik, Matthew; Hearn, Jim; Howe, Matthew; Isenberg, Cliff. Jones, Michael; Kermick, Andrew; Klumpner, James; Konove, Elissa; Konwinski, Lisa, (General Counsel, Full Access Pass); Kuehl, Sarah; Lofgren, Michael; Lucia, William; Mashburn, John; Millar, Gail, (General Counsel, Full Access Pass); Miller, Jim; Mittal, Seema; Monk, Kimberly; Morin, Jamie; Myers, David; Nagurka, Stuart; Naylor, Mary (Staff Director: Full Access Pass); Nelson, Sue; Noel, Kobye; O'Keefe, Shannon. O'Neill, Maureen; Ortega, David A.; Osterberg, K. Gayle; Page, Anne; Pappone, David; Parent, Allison; Phillips, Roy; Pollom, Jennifer; Posner, Steven; Reidy, Cheri; Richardson, Stephen; Righter, John; Seymour, Lynne; Vandivier, David; Ventimiglia, Vincent; Weiblinger, Richard; Woodall, George.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has made the point very well, but what is important is important to the majority, specifically, the essence of governance. You cannot govern unless you are willing to set out the principles by which you govern, especially the blueprint which is going to guide you in the governance activity. Obviously, one of the most significant things done when you are the majority party and you have the presence, you make the decisions, basic decisions as to how the country's finances will be managed and how moneys will be spent and that they will be shepherded well. These are tax dollars. People work hard. Every day people are putting in a full day's work and the Federal Government, every day, comes along and says, You worked all day long, we will take ``X'' percentage of the money you earned. We will take it right out of your pocket and we will spend it on a series of things. What is important is that the American people first know what we are going to spend it on and how we will spend it--that is where a budget comes into play--and that we be good shepherds of those dollars and use them effectively so people can retain as much money as possible in their pockets to spend on what they know is important in their lives, and the Government does not take it and spend it for them and tell them how their money should be spent, and that we function in a way we get the type of government that delivers the services that are critical to making sure we can defend ourselves and take care of the less fortunate in this Nation, make sure we have strong education, make sure we have good health systems, that we can continue as a nation to have a vibrant and a strong economy. This all starts with a budget. It is that simple. This is not the end of the product. This is the beginning of the exercise. If you do not have that blueprint in place, it makes the rest of the process extremely complicated and much more difficult. It is critical we pass this resolution. I strongly believe this resolution is a responsible effort to try to bring our fiscal house in order and to make strides in the area of controlling the rate of growth in spending so it is affordable for our taxpayers, but, more importantly, so it is affordable for the next generations who will have to pay the burden we put on the books today. It does, for the first time, take that step in the area of entitlement or mandatory spending which has become 59 percent of the Federal Government. A lot of people say, what about the appropriations bills? Appropriations bills are the discretionary side of the budget. They represent less than 30 percent of Federal spending. Half of that is defense, which we have to do today in a very aggressive way because we have been attacked and are at war and people are out there who want to harm us. I held a hearing this morning on terrorists relative to their desire to use biological and chemical weapons against us. It is very sobering, to say the least, but we have to defend ourselves and it will take a lot of money to do that. Of about 30 percent, half is defense, and the other part goes to nondefense discretionary so it is not the large part of the budget, of the appropriations bills that come through. The most significant part of the budget is the part of the entitlement accounts which never come across the Senate as individual spending items such as appropriations bills do. They simply are on automatic pilot. Absolutely the only way we can address policy effectively in mandatory accounts is through something called the reconciliation process. To quickly explain, that allows for the committees that have jurisdiction over these entitlement programs that are already in place and that have grown radically over the years to take another look at those programs and see if they are working as well as they could work. Medicaid is a classic example of a program that needs another look, where if we adjust it so Governors have more flexibility, we have a slower rate of growth in dollars, they can probably do a lot more for a lot more people if we give Governors the type of powers they need to accomplish that. Reconciliation is the only avenue for effectively doing that type of a review of the mandatory side of the ledger which represents 59 percent of Federal spending today. The reason it is the only effective way is because we all know nothing can go through this Congress--we have been shown that in the last few weeks--nothing goes through this Congress that is controversial without 60 votes. We also know any sort of mandatory change is going to be controversial. Reconciliation gives the opportunity to use a majority rather than a supermajority to review these programs and to make progress in restraining their rate of growth and making them more effective in delivering services. That is why this budget is a unique budget. It is the first budget we have a shot at passing in the last 2 years. The last 4 years we have only passed a budget twice. More importantly, since 1997, there has not been a budget which is a step forward to try to address the very critical element of where the Federal Government stands and how it spends money in the area of mandatory entitlement accounts which represent 59 percent of Federal spending. With that, I reserve our time, recognizing it is going to run against our side of the aisle, with the understanding the ranking member, Senator Conrad, will be here probably around 6 o'clock at which time I will yield the floor to Senator Conrad. I suggest the absence of a quorum with the understanding the time will run against our side.

Mr. GREGG. I was going to make a point that the Senator would be recognized at 9:30.